Why Orthodox Churches are still used as pawns in political games

First, a disclaimer: today I am going to touch upon a subject which is intensely painful for me and which will get quite a lot of my readers angry at me. Frankly, I did everything I could, not to discuss this issue on the blog, because I know, out of my personal experience, that discussing this topic is mostly futile and typically gets a lot of hostile reactions. This is made even worse by the fact that to be able to discuss this issue requires a certain level of knowledge in various subject matters which most people have only a very superficial familiarity with (if that). Finally, this topic is often debated in a nasty and vindictive manner and I have no desire whatsoever to contribute to that. And yet, there comes a time when I cannot remain silent, especially when I am constantly asked what my position on this topic is. At the end of the day, I have to follow my conscience and this conscience tells me that now is the time to put down in writing that which I mostly have tried to keep to myself, primarily because I did not see the point in publicly discussing it.

To really be able to understand what is really at stake here you would need, at a very minimum, to have a basic but solid understanding of the following topics:

Orthodox ecclesiology (probably the hardest topic to get a grasp of)

The history of Orthodoxy in the territory called “the Ukraine” today

The history of the Russian Orthodox Church between the 16th and 19th century

The history of the Russian Orthodox Church during the early 20th century

A good understanding of what the Moscow Patriarchate today really is (its nature, status, role, how it functions, etc.) and what it’s historical and theological roots are

A basic understanding of the history of the Orthodox Churches under Ottoman occupation

I am very sorry to say that I cannot offer even a short summary of these topics here simply because there is no way of shortly summarizing them. For those interested, I did touch upon these topics in the past, especially in this and in this article. I strongly recommend you read them to get at least a sense of what I am going to be touching upon below.

To say that this topic is very complex is an understatement. Sadly, very few Orthodox Christians nowadays have the kind of basic knowledge needed to develop an informed opinion about this. Not by their fault, by the way, but simply because the level of religious literacy (taken broadly) has been in free fall for many decades, including among the Orthodox people.

So what I want to begin with here are a number of “bullet point” observations which I want to share with you “as is”, without going into the kind of deeper analysis every single one of them would deserve. What I hope to achieve is just to give a sense of the issues involved and to convince you that things are nowhere nearly as simple and black and white as some would like them to be.

First a few historical bullet-points

First, I want to immediately set aside any discussion of Orthodox ecclesiology. Besides, 99.9999% of those discussing this issue today do not really refer to Orthodox ecclesiological arguments anyway (even when the pretend to), so there is no point in arguing about this from this perspective. I will just say that a reasonable case can be made that the territory of what is today the Ukraine should be considered separately from the rest of Russia. Simply put, the history of Orthodoxy in southwestern Russia (roughly what we think of as the Ukraine today) and northeastern Russia (roughly what we think of as Russia today) between the 13th and 18th century have been dramatically different: the Orthodox people in these regions had to live, and sometimes survive, in very different circumstances, overcoming very different crises and, for a long while, they lived in dramatically different realities (primarily thanks to the Lithuanian and Polish occupation of western Russia and the systematic anti-Orthodox policies of the Vatican and its agents). Yes, Orthodoxy in the Ukraine and Russia have the same root, but then their paths took them along very different roads, so to speak.

Second, the Russian Orthodox Church underwent a dramatic and bloody internal schism during the 17th century (the so-called “Old Rite” schism) which saw the state (not so much the Church!) violently crush the opposition. This left deep wounds inside the Russian society and these events deeply alienated the masses of the Russian people against their leaders.

Third, the Russian Orthodox Church lost her independence and was gradually subordinated to the Russian state since, at least, the reforms of Czar Peter I (called “The Great” by westernizers) who reigned from 1682 to 1725. Furthermore, starting with Peter I, Russian ruling classes were gradually replaced with “imported” West European elites, which only further alienated the common Russian people.

Fourth, much of the Ukraine was liberated from the Polish Latin yoke by Catherine II (also called “The Great” by westernizers) who reigned from 1762 to 1796. However, by liberating the Ukraine, Catherine also inherited a population which included a large number of westernized elites, both Orthodox and Latin, and a huge Jewish population.

By the late 19th early 20th century the Russian elites were largely secularized and westernized while the traditional Orthodox ethos was severely disrupted inside the Russian society at large. Furthermore, there were very diverse movements inside the Russian Orthodox Church ranging from hesychastic monasticism (I think of Saint Theophan the Recluse) to rabid modernism (which resulted in the “living church” movement). This created severe internal tensions inside the Russian Orthodox Church.

As a result of vicious and widespread religious persecutions, at least four distinct groups appeared among Russian Orthodox Christians: 1) those who fled abroad 2) those who openly opposed the new regime 3) those who went into hiding 4) those who fully embraced the new regime. The first group left Russia and eventually founded the so-called “Russian Orthodox Church Abroad”. The second group (often called the “Josephites” after their leader Met. Joseph of Petrograd) was completely exterminated. The third group (the so-called “Catacomb Church”) split into many small subgroups and survived until our days, albeit with great difficulties and in very small numbers. The fourth group formed the basis of what is known today as the “Moscow Patriarchate” which today represents the overwhelming majority of Orthodox Christians in Russia.

During the Soviet era, the Moscow Patriarchate became the loyal instrument and supporter of the state in exchange for the exclusive control of all parishes, monasteries, cathedrals, seminaries, etc. The Department of External Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate was basically run by the KGB and while the rank and file faithful had no choice which Russian Orthodox parish to attend, the Soviet state was in full control of the Moscow Patriarchate. This is what the famous Russian singer Igor Talkov, later murdered, referred to when he sang in his famous song “Globe” “Show me such a country, Where the churches are boarded up, Where the priest hides under his cassock, KGB epaulettes” (Покажите мне такую страну, Где заколочены храмы, Где священник скрывает под рясой, КГБ-шный погон).

In 1991, following the end of the Soviet era, the Moscow Patriarchate initially was challenged in its legitimacy by various groups of people, but with every passing year the Russian state under Eltsin and then Putin re-gained full control of the Moscow Patriarchate and a wave of repressions was unleashed against those small, but surprisingly numerous, Orthodox Christians groups who challenged the legitimacy of the Moscow Patriarchate.

In 2007, the majority of the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, allured by a strong sense of religious revival in Russia and a completely secular type of patriotism, reunited with the Moscow Patriarchate thereby conferring upon it a degree of legitimacy it had never enjoyed in the past.

In the Ukraine, officially independent since 1991, the situation remained far more fluid and a number of schisms occurred creating at least two versions of an “independent” Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The Latin Uniats also played a key role in the re-ignition of Ukrainian nationalism and even though most Orthodox bishops in the Ukraine remained under the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, the pressure began to remove this “Moskal” jurisdiction and replace it by a “purely Ukrainian” one.

The main problem with the so-called “Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate” (a self-proclaimed and therefore completely illegitimate ecclesiastical body) is that it is a pure product of the Moscow Patriarchate. It’s founder, Metropolitan Filaret (read about him here), was even considered a likely candidate to become Patriarch of Russia, this is might seem outright bizarre, but this is true. It gets even more surreal – in 1990 the Moscow Patriarchate actually gave the Ukrainians a bizarre status of “autonomy” (but not quite independence) thus creating something called the “Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate”, not to be confused with the “Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate” or, for that matter, with the “Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church” (all three are “sort of” official in the Ukraine).

As for the Latins and their Uniats, they have played a key role both during Bandera’s years in WWII and then in the resurgence of Ukronazi nationalism since 1991. They are one of the key factions of the Ukronazi regime in power since the coup in 2014 (the Poles and the Latins have always attacked Russia every time they perceived her as weakened by some internal or external problem; this is really nothing new).

Next, the term “canonical” and its misuses

There is a term which you will hear used a lot by all sides in this, and other, disputes. This term is “canonical”. Originally, the word “canon” simply means “measure” or “rule”. The correct modern meaning of the word “canonical” should be, but is not, “in accordance with, or in harmony/compliance with, the canons”, i.e. in conformity with the praxis and rules agreed upon by the Church Fathers and which were proclaimed by local and ecumenical Church Councils. Alas, this is not AT ALL what the word “canonical” means nowadays. Nowadays, the world canonical is used as an equivalent/substitute for “official” or “officially recognized” or even “majority endorsed”. From a strictly Orthodox point of view, this is an absolutely absurd interpretation of the notion of canonical since there were MANY times in Church history when the secular rulers backed heretical bishops and when most bishops had fallen into heresy (the times of Saint Maximos the Confessor and the Monothelite heresy come to mind). This misunderstanding of the word “canonical” is a sad witness to the deep state of secularization which so many putatively “Orthodox” Churches have undergone. But it gets even worse. Since many, or even most, “official” Orthodox churches have some very serious problems with their legitimacy and/or with their compliance with Church canons and traditions, they came up with a new trick: they confer “canonicity” upon each other. That is, one illegitimate bishop or Church declares itself the “only canonical one” in region A; another does the same in region B, and then they recognize each other and together proclaim themselves as “the only canonical” bishops/Churches worldwide. Conversely, those who do not have the support of secular powers and who cannot use the local riot police to seize parishes or monasteries are therefore decreed as “uncanonical” and dismissed as “fringe extremists”. From a purely Patristic point of view, this is all totally nonsensical and if anything, sheds a great deal of doubt upon the putative “canonicity” of the self-proclaimed “canonical” bishops or Churches. Let me give you just one example:

Every appointment of a bishop, or of a presbyter, or of a deacon made by (civil) rulers shall remain void in accordance with the Canon which says: “If any bishop comes into possession of a church by employing secular rulers, let him be deposed from office, and let him be excommunicated. And all those who communicate with him too.”

All the most authoritative interpreters of canons (Aristenos, Balsamon, Zonaras) agree that this canon categorically forbids the appointment of bishops by the interference of secular powers. In fact, the Canon quoted in this Canon is the 31st Apostolic Canon and says exactly the same thing:

If any bishop makes use of the rulers of this world, and by their means obtains to be a bishop of a church, let him be deprived and suspended, and all that communicate with him.

Pretty clear, no? This is what the Apostles themselves decreed! And yet it is undeniable that in many Orthodox countries nowadays (and in the past) bishops have their bishopric primarily, and often solely, by the intervention of secular state rulers. Christ said “my kingdom is not of this world” so how can the support of the (often secular and even atheistic) powers that be confer legitimacy aka “canonicity” upon modern bishops?! In reality, this practice itself is completely uncanonical!

The sad reality is that none of the so-called “Orthodox Churches” involved in the current dispute in the Ukraine have a “canonical leg” to stand on. While from a political or secular point of view, some might appear to be preferable to others, from a strictly canonical and Christian (Patristic) point of view, they are all illegitimate, to begin with.

What the various Ukrainian nationalistic Churches are doing now to the “Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate” is absolutely no different at all from what the Moscow Patriarchate did to the Josephites or the Catacomb Church and what the Moscow Patriarchate is still doing nowadays to the various small groups who refuse to recognize the Moscow Patriarchate and who often refer to themselves as “True Orthodox” (for the latest example of such persecution those of you who read Russian can see these articles). During the Soviet era, those belonging to such “True Orthodox” groups were simply jailed. During the 1990s the Russian riot police OMON was sent many times to seize churches, monasteries and other buildings run by Russian “True” Orthodox Christians whose only “sin” was to refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the Moscow Patriarchate. Yet the victims of those persecutions are now called “uncanonical” whereas their persecutors are “canonical”. Go figure…

Now back to politics

The sad truth is this: both in the Ukraine and in Russia the official (aka “canonical”) Orthodox Church is but an instrument in a larger toolkit of state power. In both countries the “official” Church embodies primarily national, not spiritual or theological, categories and while in Russia the current ruler is one of the most capable ones in the history of Russia (which cannot be said about the Uberloser Poroshenko), this was also the case under Eltsin (one of the worst people to ever rule over Russia) and all his Communist predecessors and this will probably remain the case for the foreseeable future regardless of who sits in the Kremlin.

I submit that when the Church is subservient to the state this is by definition extremely bad, even if the ruler of the day just so happens to be a very good one. But never mind my opinion. The Apostles and the Church Fathers all unanimously held that the Church cannot be subjected to the secular powers. At best, when the secular power is truly Orthodox, they can function together “in agreement” (symphony) one protecting and one guiding the other. But the Church should always remain the conscience of the secular leader, not his or her butler.

Think of it – does it not strike you as paradoxical that Christ said “If the world hates you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you” (John 15:18-19) and yet the very same corporate media who serve the AngloZionist Empire and its planned New World Order also would give putatively “Christian” leaders the kind of coverage which normally goes to Rock stars?

When was the last time you ever heard one of those “superstar religious leaders” dare to denounce the modern rulers of our world as the genocidal mass murderers they are, or even simply as hypocrites? But no, they meet with them and they hug, they smile, they kiss – each time a big love fest. Long gone is the time when Christian leaders had the courage to openly criticize an Empress (like Saint John Chrysostom) or dare to speak to a modern leader like Saint Philip II, Metropolitan of Moscow, who refused to bless the Czar Ivan the Terrible after a church service and instead publicly castigated him in the following words:

I don’t recognize the Orthodox Czar anymore. I don’t recognize him in his rule, O Lord! We are here bringing a sacrifice to God, while behind the alter the blood of innocent Christians is shed. Since the sun shines in the sky it has never been seen or heard that a pious Czar would outrage his own kingdom in such a way! Even in the most impious and pagan kingdoms there is the rule of law and the Truth, and there is mercy towards the people, but not in Russia! You are high on your throne, but there is an Almighty Judge above you. How will you face his judgment? Covered in the blood of the innocent, made deaf by the sound of their tortured screams? Even the stones under your feet are demanding vengeance O Lord! I am telling you as a pastor of souls – fear the One God!

Can you imagine an Orthodox Patriarch or a Latin Pope addressing, say, Obama with such words? And while Saint Philip was eventually tortured and murdered for his courage, modern Patriarchs and Popes incur no such risks. And yet they remain silent: they see nothing, hear nothing and, above all, they say nothing.

This is not a uniquely Russian or Orthodox problem, by the way. My Muslim friends tell me that they have exactly the same problems with many of their religious leaders in Russia. And not only in Russia, we also see the same abject subservience of so many supposed “Islamic” scholars to the House of Saud. And I won’t even mention western Christian denominations here, who are all integral to the Empire on too many levels to count.

In this context, what are the Ukronazis actually really up to?

In reality, they are doing two very basic and potentially dangerous things:

They are demonstrating their utility (russophobic credentials) to their AngloZionist patrons

These, along with many other signs, are indicators that a war is in the making and that sooner rather than later the Ukronazis will attack the Donbass and try to force the Russian Federation to openly intervene militarily to prevent the Ukronazis from doing to the Novorussians what the Croats and Albanians did to the Serbs in the Serbian Krajina and in Kosovo (or what Saakashvili attempted to do with South Ossetia). The current campaign to declare the “Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate” as an “enemy organization” of the “occupier” is just one more way to create tensions and prepare the public opinion for the inevitable violent climax. The fact that none of the Churches involved in this conflict have any true (canonical) legitimacy won’t make this less tragic and, and probably violent, for the people involved. As usual, the common people will pay the price while the fat cats on all sides will do just fine, thank you.

This is really a sad and tragic situation. The overwhelming majority of the people on both sides are both sincere and mislead, and their best feelings are used in what is a very dangerous political game by people who themselves will never have to suffer for their faith (or lack thereof).

Debunking the “Orthodox Pope” myth

Here I need to begin by debunking a misconception: there is no such thing as an “Orthodox Pope” or some “Eastern Pope”. The entire concept of the Papacy is a Frankish notion forcefully (and brutally) imposed upon the Western Romans by their Frankish occupiers. However, the fact that no such thing exists does not prevent some Orthodox bishops from dreaming about it (pride is a core component of our fallen human nature). I will try to clarify this issue in the simplest possible terms.

All bishops are successors to the 12 Apostles and although some of them have left a deeper mark in the history of the Church than others, there was no hierarchy among them. The famous “thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Matthew 16:18) refers not to Peter himself, but to his confession “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” just spoken by Peter in the previous verse. That was the Patristic consensus (consensus patrum) interpretation during the first 1000 years of Christianity (yes, even in the West). If anything, it was Saint James which was the first bishop of Jerusalem, and Saint Paul who, while not even part of the 12 Apostles, was the main interpreter of Christ’s teachings. The Apostles, who were assisted in their works by presbyters/priests, then further consecrated more bishops. Some of them had their see in regular towns, others in major important cities and capitals. The titles of “Archbishop” or “Metropolitan” or “Patriarch” simply refer to bishops whose see is in a major capital city (“Pope”, which just means “Father”, was the one used for the Patriarch of Rome). These are purely *administrative* titles and do not indicate any qualitative differences. Needless to say, the bishop of the Roman Empire’s capital was considered as holding the most important position as he spoke to the Emperor on behalf of the Christian people. When in the 5th century the city of Rome was sacked and eventually fell the Western Roman Empire collapsed. But in the east, the Roman civilization survived by a full 1000 years. When in the 11th century the Pope in Rome decided that he was a super-bishop (1054) which had the authority to impose his absolute rule over the entire Christian world (see the infamous 1075 Dictatus Papae) the rest of the Christian world categorically rejected such an anti-Patristic innovation and, since the first, original Rome (the city) had first fallen to the Franks and then lapsed into apostasy, the Patriarch of Constantinople found himself to be the bishop of the eastern (and only surviving) capital of the Roman Empire: Constantinople. However, and this is crucial, unlike the western Pope who claimed to be the “Vicar of Christ” and some super-bishop (a pontifex maximus), the Patriarch of Constantinople did not make any such claims of primacy just because he happened to be the bishop in the imperial capital (nowadays his official title is a modest “His Most Divine All-Holiness the Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch” – more about that below). Then, when in the 15th century, Constantinople was invaded by the Ottomans, the Roman empire truly came to an end. So, at that moment in time, which should have been considered the most important city in the Christian world? Some in Russia felt that Moscow had become the “Third Rome” (especially after the False Union of Florence in 1439), an ecclesiologically speaking controversial proposition, but which was greatly strengthened over time when Russia became the biggest, strongest, richest Orthodox country on the planet (most others were under Ottoman occupation) and the Russian population (and military might) was much larger than the one of any other Orthodox country.

You see where this is heading, right? The Patriarch of Constantinople used to be the “first among equals” for 1000 years, but now the Patriarch of Moscow was threatening this status, especially since the former was truly ruling over just one neighborhood of Istanbul (the Phanar). Without going into further details (like the attempts of the Patriarch of Constantinople to present himself as the head of all the various Orthodox diasporas worldwide), let’s just say that there is not much love lost between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Moscow Patriarchate. Both sides try to keep things civil, but there are cyclical tensions and regular outright disputes.

The reality is that even if we accept the notion that Moscow was the Third Rome, that status ended for Moscow in 1917, just as it ended for the Second Rome in 1453 and for the First Rome in 476. In fact, no Patriarch, Archbishop, Metropolitan or Bishop can today lay a claim to any “primacy of honor”, especially when most of them have their reputation soiled by their participation in the so-called Ecumenical Movement, their abandonment of the Church Calendar, their subservience to the secular powers, etc. In truth, the Orthodox world is undergoing a deep crisis on many levels and there is something profoundly indecent about these fights for some primacy of honor at a time when the majority of the population of historically Orthodox countries is only very superficially religious, if that. If there is no such thing as an “Orthodox Pope” there sure are a lot of Orthodox bishops acting as if they wanted to become one (hence the “historical” meetings, with hugs and all, between the Latin Pope and the Orthodox Patriarchs and wannabe-Popes).

Introducing another toxic phenomenon: (ethno-)phyletism

Things are made even worse by the outright nasty streak of nationalism infecting many Orthodox Churches.

The sad reality is that we live in a post-Christian world. This is also true for nominally “Orthodox” countries such as Russia, Greece or Serbia where truly religious people constitute a minority and where being “Orthodox” is primarily a national, patriotic category (at least for most people). Some even call themselves “culturally Orthodox”. These people ought not to be dismissed by the way. They are participants in what is undeniably a spiritual revival and when they conflate national/ethnic categories with spiritual ones it is often because their nation or ethnicity has been persecuted, often viciously. But when spiritual and theological categories and language are used to cover up political and secular goals, this is the time to speak up and denounce this farce for what it is: a gross misrepresentation of what true (Patristic) Christianity truly stands for and embodies.

Christian ecclesiology rejects the notion that each ethnic group ought to have its own, separate Church. This idea, that each ethnic group ought to have its own separate Church, is called “phyletism” or, sometimes, “ethno-phyletism” and is an already condemned heresy. Yes, since the Apostolic times there have been local Churches, but all these Churches were administratively autonomous for practical purposes. But in theological terms, there can be only One Church and the local Churches are simply autonomously self-organized parts of the single One Church. As for ethnicity and nationality, these are modern categories which are not even part of the Patristic theological language. And while there is nothing wrong with the French praying in French, or the Japanese in Japanese, or the Congolese in Lingala, and they all should have their own priest and bishops, and while liturgical rites have naturally and organically evolved and incorporated elements of various local cultures, the idea of the primacy of an ethnic identity over the unity of all Orthodox Christians is fundamentally wrong. This is why the Scripture says “Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, or free, but Christ is all and is in all” (Col 3:11) and “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28) and “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5) and “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal 3:7). In theological terms, all Christians, regardless of their ethnic origin and culture, form one single “Body” with many “members” all united by the same faith and their participation in the life of the Church, which is the Theandric Body of Christ.

Ideally, there should be one bishop in each region/province and all of these bishops united in local councils which themselves should be united into only one Church church of our entire planet. In the real world, with all its wars, millions of displaced refugees, vicious anti-religious repressions and members of many different cultures living in one country (as in, for example, the USA) this ideal has been very difficult to achieve. The individual ambitions of some less than spiritually-inclined bishops have just made things worse.

Summary: a very difficult situation but also reasons to keep hoping

The reality is that in most Orthodox countries, including Russia and the Ukraine, the majority of the people are “Orthodox” primarily in a cultural and even national sense. Centuries of subservience to the secular state have made many local Orthodox churches tools in the hands of politicians. There is an ugly competition for power and influence among many of the local Orthodox Churches, and especially between Constantinople and Moscow. Most putatively “Orthodox” Churches and jurisdictions have been deeply infected by modernism, secularism, national (identity) politics and are now actors in political struggles in many countries. The words “my kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36) have been forgotten by many, if not most, Orthodox bishops.

That is not to say that there is not a real spiritual revival in countries like Russia. There is. But it is also true that this revival often takes place in spite of the attitudes of “official” religious leaders (that goes both for Orthodoxy and for Islam). Still, bad as this situation is, it should be assessed in the larger historical context: in one way or another, the Church has always been undergoing crises and persecutions during almost every year since Her foundation. Many of those crises took centuries to be resolved. So the fact that so much looks bleak today should not discourage anybody. There is really nothing new under the sun.

Still, the very real spiritual revival in Russia (and in other Orthodox countries) is still in its early stages and while things are generally heading in the right direction, there is a lot of “mental ground” to be reconquered before most people return to the spiritual roots (or phronema) of the true, original, Christianity. Eventually, the Orthodox Churches will have to regain their full autonomy from the secular powers, not just in grand statements and words, but in reality. This is a long road, it will probably take many decades, if not more, to heal from the devastating consequences of the terrible events (and ideological dead-ends) of the 20th century. But as Russians (and others) rediscover the true history of their countries, I believe that this is bound to happen.

Conclusion

I wish I could have presented a simple, optimistic picture here, with on one side, the totally evil Ukrainians and on the other, the noble and heroic Russians. Alas, the reality is much more complex and, frankly, much uglier. The fight over which side gets to declare itself THE “Ukrainian Orthodox Church” is an ugly one and while, in this case, it is pretty self-evidently obvious who the aggressor is (those supported by the Ukronazi nationalists), any serious analysis of the historical context for this dispute will inevitably yield a much more complex picture. It is my personal conviction that as long as Orthodox Churches are controlled by bishops who are much more concerned with pleasing Caesar (Matthew 22:21) than they are with pleasing God, political and nationalist consideration will continue to pollute the spiritual realm. I hope that the example of Saint Philip II, Metropolitan of Moscow mentioned above, and the millions of Orthodox New Martyrs who died in the 20th century, will inspire a new generation of Orthodox hierarchs who will eventually replace the current Soviet-era faithful servants of the state (regardless of who is in power) and who will return to the true faith “which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian” (St. Athanasius).

The Saker

The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.

and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:&nbsp;You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

124 Comments

A question was posed a while back : “What is the beginning of Wisdom?” Or for that matter, “What is the Beginning of Creation?” Or of a child? Or us? The answer is all the same: Desire!

Now our Will arises from Desire – for what ought to be – and with Purpose beside Desire fulfillment is near by; ergo, the beginning of wisdom is the desire for union with the self-same thought that desired us into creation. This is an Act of Will (and thank God for that!).

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and all that act accordingly have a good understanding; his praise endures for ever and ever” (Psalm 110:11).
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the counsel of saints is understanding: for to know the law is [the character] of a sound mind” (Proverbs 9:10).

Yes . The German word > Ehrfurcht < is much closer to the original . Literally translated it clumsily says : Honouring in awe. Or praising in awe (honourably).
In German a. Russian you can create a new and deeper word out of two or even three ones. Hence the translations are so good.

Now yes, to us humans our fear is real, to the Holy Spirit, not so, to God, incomprehensible. At least in fear we have a friend, the Holy Spirit.

For remember, in fear we lose our relationship with both God & Jesus of Nazareth, who remain always in love. Which is why Jesus of Nazareth said, “When I go to love, I will bring down The Holy Spirit to you, so that you will have a friend in your loneliness in Hell – to which I can no longer join you, as I – am in Love with The House of The Lord – and will remain in Bliss beside The Lord & His Treasure – however, Worry not! The Holy Spirit will guide you back to Love and Me!”

The Modern Translation for the Latin: “Initium sapientiæ timor Domini” of Psalm 110: 10 would be:

“Begin today, make an effort, a start, and practice : “Respectable Discernment” : – and gaze – as a wise [Wo]man, or sage, or philosopher does, with awe….with awe upon the Lord of the Most High in respectable discernment (and learn to appreciate your inner self and permit your inner self to be instructed by your inner guide, your conscience, The Holy SheSpirit, so that you may one day love – just who you really are – and through the Atonement – join me and The Lord of Hosts in Heaven while you are on Earth”) and be One with The Lord (Domini).

Latin Vulgate .com: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. A good understanding to all that do it: his praise continueth for ever and ever.”

Sacred Bible.Org: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. A good understanding is for all who do it. His praise remains from age to age.”

Your quote, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and all that act accordingly have a good understanding; his praise endures for ever and ever” (Psalm 110:11).

[Link: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Psalm%20111:10%5D
KJ21
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all they that do His commandments. His praise endureth for ever!
ASV
The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all they that do his commandments: His praise endureth for ever.
AMP
The [reverent] fear of the Lord is the beginning (the prerequisite, the absolute essential, the alphabet) of wisdom; A good understanding and a teachable heart are possessed by all those who do the will of the Lord; His praise endures forever.
AMPC
The reverent fear and worship of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom and skill [the preceding and the first essential, the prerequisite and the alphabet]; a good understanding, wisdom, and meaning have all those who do [the will of the Lord]. Their praise of Him endures forever.
BRG
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.
CSB
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his instructions have good insight. His praise endures forever.
CEB
Fear of the Lord is where wisdom begins; sure knowledge is for all who keep God’s laws. God’s praise lasts forever!
CJB
the first and foremost point of wisdom is the fear of Adonai; all those living by it gain good common sense. His praise stands forever.
CEV
Respect and obey the Lord! This is the first step to wisdom and good sense. God will always be respected.
DARBY
The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all they that do [his precepts]: his praise abideth for ever.
DRA
The wicked shall see, and shall be angry, he shall gnash with his teeth and pine away: the desire of the wicked shall perish.
ERV
Wisdom begins with fear and respect for the Lord. Those who obey him are very wise. Praises will be sung to him forever.
EHV
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. All who do his precepts have good understanding. His praise stands forever.
ESV
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it have a good understanding. His praise endures forever!
ESVUK
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practise it have a good understanding. His praise endures for ever!
EXB
·Wisdom begins with respect for [L The beginning/foundation of wisdom is fear of] the Lord [Prov. 1:7]; those who ·obey [L do] ·his orders [L them] have good ·understanding [insight]. He ·should be praised [endures; L stands] forever.
GNV
The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord: all they that observe them, have good understanding: his praise endureth forever.
GW
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Good sense is shown by everyone who follows God’s guiding principles. His praise continues forever.
GNT
The way to become wise is to honor the Lord; he gives sound judgment to all who obey his commands. He is to be praised forever.
HCSB
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow His instructions have good insight. His praise endures forever.
ICB
Wisdom begins with respect for the Lord. Those who obey his orders have good understanding. He should be praised forever.
ISV
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; sound understanding belongs to those who practice it. Praise of God endures forever.
JUB
Resh The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; Schin A good understanding have all those that do his will; Tau His praise endures for ever.
KJV
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.
AKJV
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.
LEB
The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom; all who do them have a good understanding. His praise endures forever.
TLB
How can men be wise? The only way to begin is by reverence for God. For growth in wisdom comes from obeying his laws. Praise his name forever.
MSG
Hallelujah! I give thanks to God with everything I’ve got— Wherever good people gather, and in the congregation. God’s works are so great, worth A lifetime of study—endless enjoyment! Splendor and beauty mark his craft; His generosity never gives out. His miracles are his memorial— This God of Grace, this God of Love. He gave food to those who fear him, He remembered to keep his ancient promise. He proved to his people that he could do what he said: Hand them the nations on a platter—a gift! He manufactures truth and justice; All his products are guaranteed to last— Never out-of-date, never obsolete, rust-proof. All that he makes and does is honest and true: He paid the ransom for his people, He ordered his Covenant kept forever. He’s so personal and holy, worthy of our respect. The good life begins in the fear of God— Do that and you’ll know the blessing of God. His Hallelujah lasts forever!
MEV
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all who live it have insight. His praise endures forever!
NOG
The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom. Good sense is shown by everyone who follows God’s guiding principles. His praise continues forever.
NABRE
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; prudent are all who practice it. His praise endures forever.
NASB
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all those who do His commandments; His praise endures forever.
NCV
Wisdom begins with respect for the Lord; those who obey his orders have good understanding. He should be praised forever.
NET
To obey the Lord is the fundamental principle for wise living; all who carry out his precepts acquire good moral insight. He will receive praise forever.
NIRV
If you really want to become wise, you must begin by having respect for the Lord. All those who follow his rules have good understanding. People should praise him forever.
NIV
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To him belongs eternal praise.
NIVUK
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To him belongs eternal praise.
NKJV
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all those who do His commandments. His praise endures forever.
NLV
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. All who obey His Laws have good understanding. His praise lasts forever.
NLT
Fear of the Lord is the foundation of true wisdom. All who obey his commandments will grow in wisdom. Praise him forever!
NRSV
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it have a good understanding. His praise endures forever.
NRSVA
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practise it have a good understanding. His praise endures for ever.
NRSVACE
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practise it have a good understanding. His praise endures for ever.
NRSVCE
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it have a good understanding. His praise endures forever.
OJB
The fear of Hashem is the reshit chochmah; seichel tov have all they that live by it; His tehillah (praise) endureth forever.
TPT
Where can wisdom be found? It is born in the fear of God. Everyone who follows his ways will never lack his living-understanding. And the adoration of God will abide throughout eternity!
RSV
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all those who practice it. His praise endures for ever!
RSVCE
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all those who practice it. His praise endures for ever!
TLV
The fear of Adonai is the beginning of wisdom. All who follow His precepts have good understanding. His praise endures forever!
VOICE
Reverence for the Eternal is the first step toward wisdom. All those who worship Him have a good understanding. His praise will echo through eternity!
WEB
The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom. All those who do his work have a good understanding. His praise endures forever!
WYC
the beginning of wisdom is the dread of the Lord. Good understanding is to all that do it; his praising dwelleth into the world of world. (the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord/the beginning of wisdom is to revere the Lord. All who obey his commandments grow in wisdom; praise shall be his forever.)
YLT
The beginning of wisdom [is] fear of Jehovah, Good understanding have all doing them, His praise [is] standing for ever!

Full Psalm 110 from Latin Vulgate.com
[Psalm 110]

{110:1} Alleluia. Confitebor tibi Domine in toto corde meo: in consilio iustorum, et congregatione.
{110:1} Alleluia. I will confess to you, O Lord, with my whole heart, in the council of the just and in the congregation.

{110:2} Magna opera Domini: exquisita in omnes voluntates eius.
{110:2} Great are the works of the Lord, exquisite in all his intentions.

{110:3} Confessio et magnificentia opus eius: et iustitia eius manet in sæculum sæculi.
{110:3} Confession and magnificence are his work. And his justice remains from age to age.

{110:4} Memoriam fecit mirabilium suorum, misericors et miserator Dominus:
{110:4} He has created a memorial to his wonders; he is a merciful and compassionate Lord.

{110:5} escam dedit timentibus se. Memor erit in sæculum testamenti sui:
{110:5} He has given food to those who fear him. He will be mindful of his covenant in every age.

{110:6} virtutem operum suorum annunciabit populo suo:
{110:6} He will announce the virtue of his works to his people,

{110:7} Ut det illis hereditatem gentium: opera manuum eius veritas, et iudicium.
{110:7} so that he may give them the inheritance of the nations. The works of his hands are truth and judgment.

{110:8} Fidelia omnia mandata eius: confirmata in sæculum sæculi, facta in veritate et æquitate.
{110:8} All his commands are faithful: confirmed from age to age, created in truth and fairness.

{110:9} Redemptionem misit populo suo: mandavit in æternum testamentum suum. Sanctum, et terribile nomen eius:
{110:9} He has sent redemption upon his people. He has commanded his covenant for all eternity. Holy and terrible is his name.

{110:10} initium sapientiæ timor Domini. Intellectus bonus omnibus facientibus eum: laudatio eius manet in sæculum sæculi.
{110:10} The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. A good understanding is for all who do it. His praise remains from age to age.

But since you love so much quoting the Scriptures, can you tell us where in the Scriptures did Jesus say:
“When I go to love, I will bring down The Holy Spirit to you, so that you will have a friend in your loneliness in Hell – to which I can no longer join you, as I – am in Love with The House of The Lord – and will remain in Bliss beside The Lord & His Treasure – however, Worry not! The Holy Spirit will guide you back to Love and Me!” ??

That was my knee-jerk reaction. Nothing in the Bible was ever said in Latin, French, Russian, English or any language currently in existence. Languages define thought process (people think in words) and, therefore, how perceptions and emotions are also processed, experiences are lived and conclusions are drawn.

Any current Bible will always come short of the truth as it is tainted by the historical context in which it was first written, and by the translators’ inherent human bias, borne out of personal experience, cultural and historical context and conditioning and mental limitations.

“At the beginning, Lenny had taken a liking to the Israeli who didn’t speak a word of English and thus they both had excellent relations. After three months, Izzy had become fluent in English. That was the end of it. The language barrier had suddenly been erected between them. The language barrier is when two guys speak the same language. No way to understand each other any longer.”

That is why talking about religion is such a treacherous minefield and exercise in futility and yet such an eternal powerful weapon of hatred and division. To the point where I finally posted on my living room wall: “Welcome to my home. If you wish to be invited again, please do not talk to me about your religion. Rather show me what it’s making of you.” People who are offended by it never return and are never missed. Those who do return belong to every religion under the sun and they all have, at their core, the same yearning: love, with all that it entails of peace, acceptance, understanding, patience, honesty, integrity, joy and humility.

Fascinating read which, in many respects, bridges the gapping trenches humans have dug between themselves over the millennia and keep digging for want of perspective about their place, mission and role on Earth and their oneness in consciousness.

Bessarab & Catherine, it bears repeating, all Scripture is lyric based – to be heard in the native tongue -directly from The Holy Spirit!

Here’s how: from first an inhalation and then an exhalation, but understood as first an exrecrudescence, and then, a recrudescence. This brooking source of breath begins, initiates, arises, develops, and goes forth from the diaphragm of the human body and then, ribbing under pulsing waves of skeletal pressure is propelled upwardly to be later nuanced and filtered through the voice box of the singer bringing to life the personality of The Holy Spirit in our native tongue.

This was one of the most impressive analysis’ that I have ever read. I apologize if that sounds hyperbolic but it is the truth. The Saker’s insightful observation that religions have been taken over by secular governments/politicians is spot on. His comments that Christians should put down their political differences and embrace each other is the answer. Reading this made me, a person of weak faith at best, smile!

There is no battle between the spiritual and the material worlds, only battles between “spirits in the material world”. Or more specifically, immature Souls who are enamoured of power and who have yet to reap the hard lessons of their actions. Soul, an eternal entity in a temporal setting, measures It’s mettle against other Souls, in a long, drawn out Shakespearian saga over countless lifetimes, until It learns that the purpose of existence is to gain a capacity to love. The reason many religions today are not able to serve the spiritual needs of their followers is because those who inherit the leadership seldom have the spiritual standing of the founders, and the religion slowly becomes overwhelmed with matters of survival on the physical plane.

“Catholic” means universal, ie. universal dictate of the pope in Rome. “Orthodox” does not subscribe to this philosophy, where every Orthodox state has an independent Christian Orthodox Church headed by a patriarch. The schism of 1054 occurred when the Greek churches in the East refused to accept the supreme rule of the Latin Church in Rome, headed by the pope.

All this of course raises the question of Ukraine. Does Ukraine have any right to be independent, bearing in mind that the first Russian state was centered in Kiev ? There is no such thing as the Ukrainian ethnic group (western Ukraine being the exception, as people over there are of mixed blood, German, Polish, Balt, Russian – this does not apply to central and eastern Ukraine). Also, there is no such thing as the Ukrainian language, whose vocabulary is at least 90 % Russian, the rest being imported foreign words, like Polish).

To the Western elites the Orthodox church is a political problem, as the Orthodox Church backs the sovereign and free status of the state and it’s people. In the 13th century the Vatican sent the Teutonic knights against Alexander Nevsky, who defeated them. In 1204 Constantinople was sacked by the crusaders. The West is today backing the so-called “Unionists”, who advocate the union of Orthodox Churches with the Vatican, headed by the pope. Their influence, luckily, is not great.

The Orthodox Church in Russia has to be placed right next to the Russian state, as both are targeted for Western subversion. However, this subversion will fail. The Western elites are losing their influence. As for the Vatican, one has to wonder if it exists at all. The current pope has neither influence nor popularity, leaving the impression of a bureaucrat who ended up in the Vatican by mistake.

There’s no “ie”. Orthodox Church also considers itself to be “Catholic”, that is, universal, whole (from Gr. katholou); it’s part of our creed. Independence of local Churches doesn’t contradict the universality, which is a wider concept than organisational unity.

“every Orthodox state has an independent Christian Orthodox Church headed by a patriarch”

Not true; some Orthodox states do, some don’t – depending on their history. E.g. there’s an Orthodox Church of America (recognised by some but not all as an independent Church), which doesn’t have a patriarch. There’s no patriarch in Ukraine, either, only a wanna-be one, head of an entirely politically motivated schism.

“Orthodox” does not subscribe to this philosophy, where every Orthodox state has an independent Christian Orthodox Church headed by a patriarch.

and

The Orthodox Church in Russia has to be placed right next to the Russian state, as both are targeted for Western subversion.

show that The Saker didn’t manage to get his message to his readers. The (Orthodox) Church shouldn’t be a tool of the state. There shouldn’t be one single human leader (like the pope) ruling over the other bishops/priests, the Church itself should be a unity (independent of states).

Great article but linking articles from ekhokavkaza.com (part of RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty which are official American propaganda) about persecution have the opposite effect too be honest. The fact that american propaganda is paying special attention to these “breakaway” Churches means the have future plans for them.
I can easily see them being used to spread nationalism/russophobia , Ukraine is a very good example of how the church can be used to manipulate ppl.

Promoting all sorts of conflicts between “centre”(Moscow) and the “regions”(the rest of russia) is part of the Wests current strategy of destroying Russia. If you want another example check the Ural republic that they keep promoting. Frank-Walter Steinmeier read a lecture in Ekaterinburg when he was still Germanies foreign minister (his president of Germany now) in which he openly declared that urals should be independant (not sure if there is English version anywhere here is a link to some http://www.proza.ru/2015/08/24/791 sums it up in russian). Most of this stuff is either completely made up or greatly exaggerated.

Not really sure why you would even bother reading that site.

I don’t. But what I did find there is a summary of events which I know from other sources to be true, that’s all. I happen to personally know the bishop involved, and I happen to know that what is reported in these articles is factually correct. This is also why I use Wikipedia, because while no “authority” by any means, it does contain factual and well written articles. There is also this to consider: since the events described in these articles are simply NOT covered by the pro-MP Russian press, and since nobody in the West gives a damn about what happens to an Orthodox bishop in faraway South Ossetia, it is hard for me to find a source which describes these events. If I had more time I would write it all myself, but I don’t. So I did the best I could: used the only source I could find to describe to those interested the kind of stuff the pro-MP political forces still do even today. That’s all.
The Saker

Saker, it’s a pity you didn’t publish this after you returned from your break.

I am leaving tomorrow morning

In 1 of your 4 part series from 2013, interesting that you mentioned kirill as possibly being a catholic agent or similar,
Correct. A “cardinale in pectore”. To be honest, there is only circumstantial evidence of that in him. But his mentor, Nikodim Rotov, was indeed a Latin Cardinal.

because I was wondering why he met the white pope (the PR man of the church, while there is another, the black pope – both are alleged to be jesuits, and the 1st time both are such since the late 18th century)…the vatican obviously wants to take over or destroy the Russian Orthodox church.
Correct. But that would make no difference to Kirill Gundaev. He used to serve his Soviet masters, now he serves the Kremlin, tomorrow why not the Latin Pope? Serving secular powers is what he has done all his life

Regarding the Ural republic, when camoron was pm, in 2014? he stated arrogantly and rudely that he wanted to see the EU from the Atlantic to the Urals. Obviously he didn’t consult Putin about that; another dumbf*** who’s gone, while Putin is still in power.
If you can believe it, the Russian liberals are still discussing this. In a recent conference in the Baltics they were discussing the issue of “how to hand Siberia to the Chinese”

Do you have some other sources in which the West promotes the Ural republic? I’ve seen some regional (German) newspapers reporting about closer ties to Mongolia and read some nationwide reports about the future economic potential about that country. Our Western governments are definitely not up to anything good. They’re trying play the old game of divide and conquer. I’m wondering how German politicians would react if some Chinese official would recommend for Bavaria to split from Germany (funny thing is that they have some special rights that would permit breaking away).

This is the main problem that caused the separation of the Orthodox from the Catholics: Cesaropapism.
That the author of this article recognizes the existence of the problem is a step in the right direction into solving the schism. As a Catholic, i can only rejoice.

Be not afraid, the Roman Catholic Church has been infiltrated by its enemies, all the way to the top, and its hierarchy is just a tool of the judeomasons who run all western states today.

Only a very little number of bishops, who have been thrown out of the mainstream Church, are totally independent politically. The consecration of four bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 was done without any consultation of the State, who returned the favor by blocking the legacies of his religious order, at the behest of Cardinal Lustiger to the French government… Who knows that bishops are selected from a group of candidates presented by the “Ministere des Cultes”? Who know that the western Church is also a prisoner? If you pay attention to Pope Francis words, you will see that he is political tool, who even intervened in favor of the agressors of Bachar al Assad. On immigration, same thing.

What Russia enjoys today is the union of Church and State, but, alas with a subordination of the Church to the other, contrary to the natural subordination of the end of the State to the end of the Church.
To break free from the interference of the State you need either:
1. Very brave Christians who can defy the exagerate claims of modern States, especially if they are secular humanists. The key is that the nomination of bishops is free from state interference.
or,
2. A head of State who is not afraid of the “Liberty and the exaltation of the Church.”
The greatest example of this was the president of Ecuador, Gabriel Garcia Moreno, and the freemasons got his message and shot him dead.

Throughout the Middle Ages the Church fought to keep this liberty from the interference of the state, and the fight ended as a draw, more or less. It was a tough fight, and the imperfect solution was the signing of Concordats with all Christian States. Then came the Revolution, both in 1789 and 1962.

This is the main problem that caused the separation of the Orthodox from the Catholics: Cesaropapism. That the author of this article recognizes the existence of the problem is a step in the right direction into solving the schism. As a Catholic, i can only rejoice.

And as an Orthodox Christian I can only be saddened by the fact that you put words in my mouth I never used (“Cesaropapism” is a purely western concept used by those who simply never understood the theory of symphony between the Emperor’s power and the Church) and that, even worse, you would say that this false concept is at the root of the schism. True, Latins have been lying about this topic for now close to 1000 years and I would expect no less from their modern successors. Still, as a clergyman, you should at least know that schisms are solved by one mechanism only: the repentance of the schismatic, not by some convergence of theories and analyses. Finally, if, indeed, the Latins always considered Orthodox as “Photian Schismatics”, you should be aware that at least since the time of Saint Mark of Ephesus the Orthodox Christians have made clear that the problem with the Latins is not schism, but heresy. Furthermore, the Latins have since introduced numerous new and additional heresies (such as the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, for example), making that doctrinal departure and innovation only deeper and wider (I won’t even go into the original Filioque thing).

This has been a pattern for centuries: each and every time there has been some internal crises inside the Orthodox Church the Latins have immediately pounced on it with the idea “what’s in it for us, how can we make use of it?” (the last time in Russia in 1917-1918). Your “rejoicing” is of exactly the same nature and I can already tell you that it is misguided. Whatever problems Orthodoxy might be suffering, there is one thing which 90%+ of the Orthodox Christians agree with: we want no part at all from your Latin heresy, of the “trad” or “non-trad” type.

The best thing you can do to REALLY improve relations with us is to stop trying to convert or otherwise “reunite” us under the Papacy. Just leave us alone, and we will be deeply grateful.

I am not going to debate about words, and the dogmatic aspect of the schism is not the object of this thread.
The ennemy is that enslavement of the Church to the State.
Whichever Church succeds to break free from it has all the chances to be the true one.

Whichever Church succeds to break free from it has all the chances to be the true one.

That is an entirely secular definition of the Church.
As for me, what was good enough for the Fathers is good enough for me.
Still, and just to re-arrange your words, I would say this
“It will be the Church which will be crucified by the state which has all the chances to be the true one” :-)
see how different our faiths, and ethos, are?
Cheers,
The Saker

Haha…how true. Jesus is with the kids sheltering in a cellar from bombing, in an old inflatable boat crossing the sea seeking refuge, or running through the night across the desert. ‘Terrorist fanatic’ is how they described Jesus. Oil and water.

Your undignified lamentation here is deeply alienating. And while I can fully understand the Saker’s scorn, I would contradict his conclusion that indulging in such unchristian alienation you are typical of Christians of Catholic faith.

As a Christian of Rhinish Catholic background, I know what Creed I confirm in every single mass I attend: In relation to the Church it is the confirmation that she is the Bride with Christ as Bridegroom, the Body of which Christ is the Head, and the gates of hell will not prevail against Her. She is the Temple of the Holy Spirit, and She is ONE. In Saint Cyprian’s words: “Hence the universal Church is seen as a unity brought into unity from the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

So talk of the kind “whichever Church succeeds” is alien to Creed, as unity in His Church can only grow from purity of faith of all His children, who can only spread His light by giving testimony in His love and in the Holy spirit of His invitation to salvation.

Your whole crooked views can clearly be discerned from your basically political concern right from the beginning. Your lamenting that ‘the Roman Church’ was in a state ‘political custody’ (I cannot judge whether this is the case with the Vatikan) does not lament political abuse of creed as such, but the alleged abuse by political powers you resent, while doing so, your underlying political preferences show the same contempt for human beings you blame on others.

Just to pick up your notion of “refugees”: Being German, I am the opposite of a fan of ‘Angela Merkel’s refugee policies’, as I see what they really are. That woman has been a supporter of all criminal US wars in the Middle East (only in case of Lybia a German government under her lead abstained in the UN from endorsing the US’ and France’ criminal slaughtering of the Lybian government), like all other head of western states she neglected paying UN adequately for their refugee care and she ignored the burden Italy and Greece had for years. But when she thought a pseudo-humanitarian show would be a great coup for fighting through centralised EU control of European borders (by which she meant German control), she made some selfies with refugees, gave them the wrong message they would be welcome in Germany, while they have been shifted back in their battered countries as urgently as possible afterwards.

This woman’s policies were cynical, as they were not in the least guided by the perception of the dignity of the involved people. It was simply a game of power – whose outcome did not meet her expectations.

You, however, are not interested in people either. By argueing against “refugees” you do not in the first place blaim western elites for battering countries, destroying their infrastructure and slaughtering people, but you worry for the perseverance of an alleged “white Christian Europe” as a homogenous political construction, that can afford to ignore the problems in the rest of the world, which it has helped to create.

This is cynic and – anti-Christian. To defend Church authorities in that case, I need to say here that I have perceived that, for example, Radio Vatican and other Catholic media were the rare exception within the hostile chorus of western media, that did not only offer a fair and balanced coverage of the war in Syria, but showed serious concern for the plight of oriental Christians, but did not deny Muslim victims of that war empathy either. In your notion of refugees, on the other hand, I cannot discern the slightest concern for what US and Nato wars have done to oriental Christianity. Do you call that “Christian”?

You call Pope Francis “a political tool”. I have no insight what influence big politics have on him. I agreed with his warning that “capitalism kills” and that mounting political hostilities pose the danger of a big war. I could not perceive him as supporter of US and Nato agenda – but somehow he was not much present in the media, I suppose for exactly that reason. I would, however, like him, in the name of all these threatened and war traumatised war victims, to speak up much more clearly against western cynism.

By wishing that, I do certainly not want Catholic clergy to turn political, in the sense that they should follow a political agenda – as you clearly do, and not even one that deserves support. I want them to speak up for human beings batttered by politics. This clearly goes along with Creed, what you suggest here, definitely not.

As a Christian and bishop of Rome he could, however, rightly turn against the warriors and tell them what they do to themselves by abusing human beings as pawns in their structure for hegemony, by telling them in His words:

“Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”

You call Pope Francis “a political tool”. … I agreed with his warning that “capitalism kills” and that mounting political hostilities pose the danger of a big war. … speak up much more clearly against western cynism.

At the first glance Pope Francis seems like some humble person who’s concerned about the well-being of the poor and those left behind. Until nearly the end of last year I regarded him as a person with good intentions, but his proposal to change the words of The Lord’s Prayer set alarm bells off (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42279427).

Clergy in general, be it Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant should get political in one important aspect. Wars and production of weapons aren’t part of the New Testament and shouldn’t be approved by anyone. Clergy should oppose such things, but there’s a deafening silence in this regard. Even more are priests like (deceased) Kardinal Meisner approved military interventions and even held ministries for soldiers (Soldatengottesdienst). Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not against preaching to soldiers, but I’m against empowering them by approving their job. I’m also against priests giving their blessings to military installations like Schnöggersburg, the training center for urban warfare (https://www.az-online.de/bilder/2017/10/27/8812716/534839124-2017-10-26-123037-QI6b.jpg ). Those priests serve politicians and mammon.
Clergy of other Abrahamic religions should also get involved in those matters, finally wars (and the lies used to start them) are a disregard of the Ten Commandments, which apply to Jews, Muslims and Christians.

Don’t even mention Cardina Meisner! – I have grown up in Cologne and have still most of my family there. He was the most despised archbishop in Cologne since Siegried II in the 13th century, whom the citizen of Cologne defeated in the Battle of Worringen, through which they pressed through that all secular power was in the hands of the city council. As a consequence the citizens of Cologne and all parish priests were excommunicated by the pope for fourteen years, till Rome got weary of dispensing with payments from Cologne.

Meisner was battered onto us by Karel Woitila, and the dismay was so high that even the “Dom Kapitel” considered refusing him entrance. The Cathedral of Cologne is the only church in the world which is a legal person, thus four local priests guard the keys of our “Dom”. Parish priests went as well in opposition to him as the overwhelming majority of ordinary Catholics in Cologne.

Meisner, originating from the feudal Catholic region of the Eichsfeld in Thuringa, who was a deeply authoritarian persona in the negative and bossy way, did not only produce one scandal after the other, he additionally had close ties to the clerical fascist organisation “Opus Dei”, which dates back to Franco’s Spain and had splendid relations to the fascist Ustaca regime in Croatia, and called utterly disgraceful Opus Dei priests to Cologne. He even called the most unpleasant of them in one of our old Romanic churches, St. Panthaleon, where the relics of the late Roman martyr and saint, who is called St. Panteleimon by Greek and Serbian orthodox, and who is worshipped, except by Orthodox Christians, solely by Rhinish Catholics, where this man dedicated one of the chapels to Josemaria Escriva, the founder of the deeply sinister Opus Dei society. Ordinary people fled that parish and went to the neighbour church.

Meisner definitely presents the most sinister and evil faction within the Catholic clergy.

Of course every priest and bishop should speak up for peace, which is only his Christian duty, but should stay away from all messing in state or other power hierarchies. Speaking up for peace is taking the side of the oppressed and to confront oppressors and the massmurder of war.

Anja, I think you are missing the point totally.
The so called alienation, in your opinion, towards Catholic church has historical background, which started with the “crusades” against orthodox church in the Central and Eastern Europe in IX century. Examples? Czechs saw total destruction of all Orthodox Churches and murder of the clergy in 800’s AD (actually I do not remember which one of the two either Methody or Cyril was brutally murdered in Prague. Later on Red Rus Aleksandr Nevsky defeated the cross wearing western thugs (Catholics) I do not remember but I would guess it was in 11-something. Later again the Red Rus (today’s Ukraine) saw the same at the hands of Polish-Lithuanian Catholic Church. Today’s Romania (North Western part of it) saw similar from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, their Orthodox Church was forcefully converted to what’s called today Orthodox-Catholic. In 1204 Constantinople was plundered raped and burned by the Crusaders (Some people call those thugs Francs, I call them Venetians and their western gangs). I think this should be enough.

I don’t think I have missed your point, Anonius. What I have stated is that not only Orthodox Christians, but as well the vast majority of western Chatholic Christians object to the abuse of Christianity for political or even geopolitical reasons. I neither approve of nor justify any subjection of people under any institutional rule.

You rightfully mentioned Cardinal Meisner (who died last year) as a worrisome example in that context; I have only confirmed that he was seen exactly the same in my home town, where he was the appointed archbiship, by the vast majority of ordinary Chatholics and parish priests.

There are 6 million Christians on this globe; 2,7 million of them are Chatholic Christians. More than 99% of them have never had the slightest intention to crusade against Orthodox Christians. What, in my view, seeing the degree of poison, hate and war on this planet, should be our first concern is to give testimony together against that hate, poison and bellicism. From personal enocunters of ordinary people I have not the impression that what believing people view as their creed is really different. To strive for humility and purity of creed and for peace on this planet, should be the primary goal of Christians.

In classes I teach I have Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and Oriental Christians plus Shia and Sunni Muslims. Two third are from families, who have experienced war and emigration in the last two decades. These kids have no message that divides them, but have all been victims of the same unworthy geopolitical muscular game.

There is nothing unorthodox about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which was defended by no less than Saint Gregory Palamas. Only towards the end of the 19th century was it added to a laundry list of differences with Rome (several decades after 1854). In Orthodoxy, however, it is not a dogma, but a theologoumenon that one is free to accept or reject. There’s a very informative article on the subject at https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church/.

President Gabriel Garcia Moreno had gone to Mass at 6:00 a.m. and when it was over he left to go to the Presidential Palace. As he was climbing the steps he was was first attacked 14 times with a machete by Rayos and 6 bullets from the other four killers. President Gabriel Garcia suffered a gruesome death, as the killer Faustino Lemos Rayo hit him with much hatred with a machete on his head, shoulder and back. The pious and defenseless man only had a cane to defend himself.

Pres. Gabriel Garcia had attended Mass at 6:00 a.m. and had a rosary hanging on his neck and a Cross of Christ relic on his person. Both were full of blood when he was taken to the Cathedral to receive immediate aid and last rites.He was an extremely religious man from childhood to the end of his life . Few days before his assassination he’d accused Germany of instigating hatred of other neighboring countries against him.
He was so religious he insisted that his country had to be under God and his presidential mandates subservient always to God.

The pious president’s last words were : ” Dios no muere”. God does not die.

His assasin Faustino Lemos Rayo did not live but a few minutes after. A soldier bayonet passed through his leg.
The coward begging for mercy was dragged through the streets and was finally shot in the eye by a soldier.
I am not sure what happened to the other four killers.

Fascinating from many angles, with the usual masterful summarization . It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same don’t they? Theo the recluse book title is must read.

Quote: “Every appointment of a bishop, or of a presbyter, or of a deacon made by (civil) rulers shall remain void in accordance with the Canon which says: “If any bishop comes into possession of a church by employing secular rulers, let him be deposed from office, and let him be excommunicated. And all those who communicate with him too.”

Does this not just remind of someone, in some walled refuge just west of Rome. The name of the place will only be referred to by the letter V in order to protect the privacy of the occupant (as well as his NWO master “Lord” Rothschild) I suppose.

Thanks ever so much for such a truly wonderful and insightful summation of a terribly complex topic. Pride seems to be the eternal enemy of excellent human thought. He who looks up to Almighty God with profound humility understands that there are much greater forces at work than most of us could possibly understand. Alternatively, those who seek to manipulate religion, politics, and history for their own purposes reveal that they seek not Truth, but their selfish and prideful power. Perhaps we can be assured that Almighty God will, and does, provide the correct path for all those who seek humbly with Truth in their hearts. May the Lord bless you and keep you and make His face to shine upon you, and give you Peace.

From these two statements, it appears that the Russian Orthodox Church has not been independent of the State, whether that of the Czar or of the Soviets since at least 1725, or close to 300 years.

That is, the Church as an institution has a deep influence on those who believe in its teachings. And by extension, its hierarchy. Want to control the people? Control the institutions that control the thinking of the people. How to control the institution? Control its hierarchy.

As the Saker points out, Muslims have noted the same thing in their countries, and it is obviously true in most countries with a religious hierarchy, such as Shinto in Japan, or Buddhism in China and Tibet, or Hinduism in India. Gosh, look at the state of Christian authority in the USA! Who was the last real religious authority to challenge the State? Martin Luther King, whom the State murdered. A few clerics here and there who challenged the war machine were jailed, such as Daniel and Philip Berrigan. Most US religious leaders are cheerleaders for Manifest Destiny.

Centers of power and influence and their leaders are coopted by the central authority, whether they are religious or otherwise. Or, those centers coopt the central authority, aka ‘The Government’. In order to enhance their own authority and status.

A further complication is that as the Saker points out, within all institutions, and in this case the religious institutions, individual egos seek domination and control–to be seen as ‘the authority’. Hence, the need for ‘heresies’. Meanwhile the average sincere practitioner is caught in these conflicts. The question arises, “Who decides what is correct or not correct, or heretical or non heretical?” The winner of what are essentially internal political conflicts.

Sooner or later, all things pass. The healthy and strong become old and weak, and institutions with the best of intentions initially become corrupted. This is unavoidable. What to do? No easy answer since such problems are as inevitable as the law of gravity, at least on this planet and this universe.

Keep it simple. Follow the teachings of the teacher you choose to follow. Or choose to do the right thing. Some of the greatest crimes are perpetrated in the name of righteousness. So even devout followers of any religion can make grievous errors based on their own selfishness, and regardless of the validity of the teaching. And Good Samaritans exist as well.

As for what to do about the Ukrainian Church, as Saker points out, it is a pawn and the Saker does a service by speaking the simple truth.

Wonderful explanation and real future hopes that are very possibly healed Orthodox Christianity will lead from this horrible US inspired globally revealed, reprehensible world chaos. The Roman Catholic version’s partnership with Hitler will haunt it for centuries. WW11, not even over yet, was less than one hundred years ago.

It is true that Christ is head of the Christian Congregation and as Matt 28, last verses, tell us his father has given him all authority and he assures us that he is with the true Christian congregation until the end of this system of things. The true Christian congregation will even now be doing as directed.

Christ tells us that the religeous leaders of his day were totally corrupt (Matt 23 etc). They followed their traditions rather than the scriptures. Many religeous leaders today serve the State first and God second. Christ said you cannot serve 2 masters, so they are also corrupt. They ignore the Scriptures and follow popular satanic ideas; many priests are homosexual. The scriptures say to hate what is bad, but church leaders often welcome unrepentant practisers of what God hates. They do not keep their congregations clean; Christ’s message at Rev 2:20 is ignored.

This corruption of Christ’s teachings was prophesied in the Scriptures. It is clear most would be on the wide road leading to destruction. 2 Tim 3:1-5 explains where the world is on God’s timeline. Psalm 2 shows how world rulers refuse to accept Christ as King of Gods Kingdom. Jeremiah 25:31-33 shows what awaits them and their supporters.. The end of Satan’s world rulership seems very near. We can recognise the season, but not know the day.

So the true Christian congregation will active worldwide. It will be loyal to God and Christ rather that nationalism. It will obey man’s law unless it conflicts with God’s law as clearly stated in the Scriptures (Psalm 1:2).

For what it’s worth, Bill, if you’d like to read something very interesting regarding the season of Christ’s Return (the End Time), then by all means read the following webpage and the two documents on it: http://www.unhyp.com/the-end.html

Give it a good chance… it is not the same old broad-brushed, generalized guesswork based on cherry-picked verses that many discussions regarding Bible prophecy consist of; it is very simple, yet specific, detailed, and thorough, and backed up with many Bible verses that are, of course, consistent, when seen in the right light.

It would be hard to disprove, using Bible Scripture, the time frame (not the day or hour) it puts forth for the end of this world.

The situation in Ukraine is a mirror image of what took place after the minority revolt and the Western powers occupation of Russia in 1917-1926. “The Ukraine,” which is the Southwestern territory of Russia populated by majority of Russian Orthodox people, is occupied by NATO members and ruled by Talmudist managers, most of whom came from the Communist party background, as I disclosed in my book Pokémon in Ukraine.

Everything that took place after the Bolchevik revolt, when the new authority comprised of 85% Talmudists and the rest of Latin minorities with the help of invading Antanta countries murdered 18 million Russian Orthodox, destroyed the Church, culture, and pillaged wealth of the nation via ” economic concessions” with the Bolsheviks. So called “the White Movement” was also supported by the Antanta as anti-Church and anti-Russian force.

The same situation is in the Ukraine, right now. The Talmudists and the Latins are destroying the Orthodox Church and drive millions of Christians to leave the country. In four years population of Ukraine went from 45 million to approximately 25 million, with the majority of people fleeing to Russia.

Simultaneously, Pharisees and the Latins together are attacking the Orthodox Christianity in general.

Every day we see articles like “Why Orthodox Christian Nations Remain Stuck: Their religious roots, not their Communist experience, support authoritarianism and risk aversion” written by Talmudist Leonid Bershidsky for the Bloomberg.

GQ magazine placed the Christian Bible (but not Talmud) on a list of over-rated literature and described the Bible as “self-contradictory, foolish, and even at times ill-intentioned.”

Orthodox Christians are hiding and not saying anything about the Pharisees raiding and burning churches, murdering priests and nuns, making fake churches in the Ukraine, publishing fake bibles and even publishing racist fake scientific “research” about alleged inferiority of the Orthodox Christians. The Latins worship Pharisees, Pharisees worship anti-Christ, we worship Christ, and we are losing grounds to them every single day.

I would question whether Poroshenko has legitimacy to speak on behalf of Ukrainians on anything; millions of Ukrainians are in exile and one faction among several monopolizes political power in that state. Are opposing points of view able to express themselves? If a neutral poll were taken of all Ukrainians what would be the result?

This is somewhat off topic but there has been a problem with the Orthodox Church in Palestine. I think the story goes like this: during Ottoman rule the leaders of this church in Syria and Palestine (then a single province) were Greeks selected by the Greek hierarchy. The Syrians revolted against this practice and were able to obtain local rule but this did not happen in Palestine. After the Zionists occupied Palestine, the Greek official managing the church there has basically collaborated with the Israelis. He does not listen to Palestinian opinion, does not care that Palestinians are in a life-and-death struggle to continue to exist as a community, and has been selling off church properties to the Israelis against Palestinian protests. For years Palestinians have been asking the church to replace this fellow with a local person but they are simply ignored.

Palestinians should start applying for Russia’s citizenship, with their Muslims joining Russia’s Muslims and Christians joining the Moscow patriarchate, like people on Donbass have done. This will create a proper conditions for Russia to assist them. Palestinians should join the realm of the Russian Mir.

Many Palestinians have actually attended Russian/Soviet universities. Ironically, many Israelis are of Russian extraction. A Palestinian from Gaza with a Russian mother told me once of the strange encounters she had with Russian Israelis at checkpoints. Both had Russian ethnicity but one was an oppressor and the other oppressed. They would ask how her mother could have lowered herself to marrying a Palestinian. I think if Palestinians acquire Russian citizenship it should be for honorable motives and not to use Russia. In many ways Palestinians, Russians, and many others face a common problem– Western imperialism, and this brings them together. Russia’s promotion of a rules-based multilateral world is a direct challenge to the Empire. By itself this helps Palestinians and others.

If the Patriarch of Constantinople grants Porotshenko-Waltzman his own personal “Orthodox Church” it would make this Talmudic Pharisey to be equal to Apostles.

Next, the rabbis ruling the cult based state of Israel will proclaim him to be their moshiach and the Pope will crown him as an “unificator” of the Eastern and Western churches.

I am surprised that those of our readers who rightfully consider the Bolsheviks to be Satanists, don’t have the same notion about the current rulers of Ukraine. Many of them are direct descendants of those Bolsheviks.

You are right about our former citizens. Now, you can imagine what they did to us when they had power in Russia, and what they are doing now with Russians in Ukraine.

Hopefully, after presidential inauguration in May we will see a new government of Russia, without the lefts, and it will become possible to bring all Palestinians, Muslims and Christians, under Russia’s wing.

It will also help in closing the lid over Israel, for their own good, of course. Only for their own good. We see that Jews unable to restrain their thirst for blood, so it’s time for us to help them to calm down. We have enough flying, floating and underwater sedatives for that.

Scott, I think you have to factor in the vatican through biden the catholic controlling ukraine.
Then of course, there is waltzman, the jew, or ‘jew’ & even zuckerberg the jew/’jew’ who erroneously believes the region in/around ukraine as a second ‘jewish’ homeland, which is, of course, totally unbiblical.

As an Orthodox Christian, I have much to learn about church politics, especially of the Russian Orthodox Church. Thanks for this summary of what is going on right now. I hope and pray that the church leadership will put aside their differences and their pride to seek a way forward that recognizes the universality of our faith regardless of national borders.

The deepest truth is only available to those who actively seek it, and then strive to practice it in all their affairs. It is more a matter of the heart and the deep spiritual intuition than any external aids, although these can be useful and sometimes essential. A good student can learn, even from a bad teacher. But a bad student cannot learn even from the best teacher. It is our human responsibility to seek and find the truth; no one can do this for us. Even Christ could do nothing for those who refused his teaching, except to pray for them that they become more open to the truth.

Even those of us intent on sharing the secular truth of our present perilous situation find most minds closed against us. It is said, many are called, but few are chosen. Today there are not many who are even called to the deeper truths of being human in this mysterious universe. Often we are confronted with the futility of casting pearls before swine.

What do flowing robes, other “religious” garb and paraphernalia, and church “power plays” have to do with Jesus Christ ? Nothing. Also, what do titles such as “father” and “patriarch” have to do with Jesus Christ ? Nothing. In fact Jesus forbids True brethren from using such terms, which people use to exalt themselves. If one is unwilling to keep even the simplest of His Commandments, then why should anyone else trust them ?

The True Gospel of Jesus Christ is not hard, friends. After all, Jesus tells us in Matthew 18:3:

“Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” (NKJV)

Therefore, it is not hard. Truly, it is as simple as reading the Bible books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and then for the True-hearted, doing what Jesus teaches. One cannot claim to believe in Him otherwise.

“But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46, NKJV)

And what does Jesus want for us ? To repent. To forgive. And to keep God’s Commandments, including the Two Most Important Commandments which serve as the Foundation for the Ten Commandments, which themselves provide the basis for the moral code we are to live by.

Thus, Love is the foundation for living by the Truth, as manifested in Godly thoughts, words, and behavior.

It’s not hard. So before trusting any church to filter Jesus’ Message for us, we should make sure to know His Word – which is easy to do – beforehand. Only then can one know if what any given church (or person) says actually agrees with Jesus.

This is not to say that all churches are “all bad”. Anything a given church does well in accordance with Christ does not need correction. But wherever a given church disgrees with Christ, we should at least know about it from the Master Himself, so to not be misled.

On that note, where exactly is Sunday-keeping in the Bible ? Not one verse institutes it, not even for Gentiles.

And who gave man the “right” to try to change God’s Fourth Commandment for the Seventh-Day Sabbath ?

No one.

In fact, Daniel 7:25 (NKJV) says this:

“He shall speak pompous words against the Most High,
Shall persecute the saints of the Most High,
And shall intend to change times and law.”

Whoever “he” in the verse above is, we obviously should not follow “him”, because “he” gets destroyed forever in the very next verse (Daniel 7:26). That’s because “he” in the verse above is the one who not only persecuted/persecutes the saints, but who also has attempted to change God’s times and law. How ? By attempting to change the only Commandment in God’s Law dealing with “times” – the weekly Sabbath Day defined by God’s Fourth Commandment, by attempting to change God’s True Sabbath to Sunday instead.

The “he” in the verse above comes through religion that was corrupted by those who seek to “own” religion.
The “he” in the verse above lives in luxury, literally within his own nation.
The “he” above is not of Christ, no matter how “religious” he tries to appear.

And therefore, let no church that claims to be of Christ follow what the “he” in the verse above does.

Let the church “schism” remain, and let the East come back fully to God.

“Big” lawless religion has always teamed with “big” (national level) government to do bad things.

We only have to look at the “big” lawless so-called “religious” leadership of Jesus’ day, and how it teamed with the Roman government to have Jesus crucified on the Cross. (Although Jesus put the “greater sin” on the Jewish leaders, because they knew who He was. From John 19:11 (NKJV), Jesus speaking to Pilate: “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”)

The Orthodox churches too, of course, are not innocent, as you know. They too have kept, and keep, many of the lawless, self-exalting, earthly power-seeking things that their (former) brethren the Roman Catholics keep: from the small – the way their leaders dress to appear “religious” to the self-exalting titles with which they refer to themselves; to the big – breaking God’s Law, His Fourth Commandment, by attempting to keep the sabbath day of their own choosing, versus the Sabbath Day of God’s choosing.

(And yes, the Roman Catholic church is the “he” referred to in Daniel 7:25, the ones who persecuted, and still persecute, the saints, and who have kept a vain attempt to change God’s times and Law.)

These churches do some things okay, sure, but that veneer does not fully cover the power-seeking and lawlessness that still shows through.

From Jesus in Matthew 7:21-23 (NKJV): “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’”

How one could wish the Orthodox churches would have rejected the Roman Catholic ways completely, and started over with the simple, Jesus-based, Word-based religion of the original Apostles. But sadly, once an earthly power-structure exists, the human beings at the top of it almost never let go, but seek only more.

So it comes as no surprise that “big” religion, such as the Roman Catholics and Orthodox churches, in their quest for more power and the influence that comes with it, not only end up competing with each other (as the “violent take it by force” as Jesus says in Matthew 11:12), but also seek to team with “big” government.

“Big” religion “pawns” of “big” government ? More like co-equals with slightly different approaches; one has guns, the other has the pretense of piety (not that the two don’t cross from time to time). And both have money, and lots of it.

But by seeking earthly gain, they do not use what they have in a manner trustworthy to God and Jesus:

“He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much. Therefore if you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?” (Luke 16:10-11, NKJV)

Thus, by the lawlessness and hypocrisy of “big” religion (much like the Pharisees), God and Jesus don’t trust them, and certainly not with anything having to do with God’s Kingdom (the ‘true riches”).

So why should anyone else ? Who should trust “big” religion any more than the “big” governments they team with ? Politicized religion is toxic to people’s Salvation, blocking the door to God’s Kingdom (Matthew 23:13).

So what should one should do regarding “big” politically-connected religion ? Simply follow God’s Word:

“Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues.”
Revelation 18:4 (NKJV)

Why the implementation of the human Ego as sel-entitled base of Christian exegesis, which followed Luther’s short-sighted error, has been the worst distortion of Christianity, to which we owe the global threat of US suprematism:

“And yes, the Roman Catholic church is the “he” referred to in Daniel 7:25, the ones who persecuted, and still persecute, the saints, and who have kept a vain attempt to change God’s times and Law.”

Presenting Scriptures as testimony of abyssmal foolishness is a severe heresy. And that is exactly what self-enabling fools like this Wade do. Knowing about the history of canonization of the Old Church and the challenges she faced, the mania of so-called preachers of ‘literal understanding’ of the Bible, which is – as a one-and-for-all ‘neutral’=universally valid interpretation of any text – is simply hermeneutically impossible, is nothing but enthroning the subjective Ego of every heritical as absolute.

The nonsense that guy wrtites is so anachronistic, that its foolishness strikes every single person who has learnt to use his brain.

The sharp-thinking German enlightenment author Georg Christoph Lichtenberg wrote a strikingly true aphorism:

“A book is like a mirror. If an ape looks into it, is is hardly likely that an apostle will like out.”

This says everything about these Protestant “truthers”.

It is Calvin’s heresy to which we owe the current threat by the Lunatic States of America.

I have been following The Saker for some time now but have never left a comment. But I regularly pray for and sense a kindred spirit with this incredible man and many of the commentators on this site. Over 20 years ago I wrote a song which I believe is apropos to the subject matter at hand. The following link will take you to the music video which I would to share with my brothers (and sisters) in arms.

Jesus supposedly said, “the law killeth, the Spirit giveth life.” The Pharisees used the laws and religious dogmas to oppress the people. Rather than proposing new laws, Jesus called on people to cultivate their true and loving hearts, so that this could be their inner guide to what is right or wrong.

But first you have to receive the Holy Ghost inside you through Baptism.
“I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. 20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. 21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him”(John 14:16-21).

For what it is worth, in the Bible Jesus does not say that “the law killeth”. I believe you are referring to the Apostle Paul, as noted further below.

But before that, if I may, here a few quotes from Jesus regarding the Law (not Jewish law regarding priests, feasts, sacrifices, and rituals like circumcision; but rather God’s Law of Commandments, the Two Most Important Commandments and the Ten Commandments working together): (all quotes from the NKJV)

Matthew 5:17-20:
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Matthew 7:21-23:
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’”

Matthew 13:41-42:
“The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

Matthew 13:49-50:
“So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just, and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
(comparing to the two verses above, we can see that “the wicked” are those who “practice lawlessness”)

Matthew 23:23:
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.”

Mark 10:17-19:
Now as He (Jesus) was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Do not defraud,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’”

Luke 10:25-28:
25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He (Jesus) said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?” So he answered and said, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’” And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”

John 14:15:
“If you love Me, keep My commandments.”

Also, from the First Letter of the Apostle John:

1 John 3:4:
“Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.”

1 John 3:24:
“Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.”

1 John 5:2-3:
“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.”

—

Referring to your quote about, though, Jesus does say something somewhat similar in John 6:63:
“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing.”

Thus, if one tries to live merely by their “flesh” (or “self”), that is, by their mental, physical, and emotional states whereby they mostly just do whatever they “feel like” or physically desire, then they will live a non-Spirit-led life, which is basically a carnal life lived in sin. Even if one tries to keep the Law “on their own” without connection to God and Jesus through the Holy Spirit, they will fail (the flesh profits nothing).

Now, as noted above, the Apostle Paul is the one who delivers the quote you gave, from 2 Corinthians 3:5-6:
“Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”

In short (and as you note very well in your comment), Paul was pointing out that the keeping the Law is much easier and better through the New Covenant by which one has Jesus in their heart and the Holy Spirit within them; versus the Old Covenant where the people tended to see the Law through a more legalistic, technical lens, most especially due to the burdens the Pharisees and their scribes put on the people regarding it. The Law was still glorious in the Old Testament, but the so-called “religious leaders” made it seem like death.

Closing with Jesus, from Luke 11:46:
“Woe to you also, lawyers! For you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers.”

And also from Matthew 23:1-12:
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

A while back, on the old saker’s website somebody provided good links to a bunch of important PDF books and articles on the subject of Orthodox teachings and some spiritual specifics of the Russian church. My hard drive got fried and I can’t locate these important files any longer. Can somebody point me to any good resources that would cover this subject matter. I really would like to go deep into it and looking for a starting point. This article gave me a certain sense of urgency and I’d love to dive into it without too much delay. Thank you in advance

“On February 12, 2016 a historic event took place: Pope Francis and His Holiness Patriarch Kirill met in Cuba, paving the way for the reunification of the two Churches – the Eastern and Western.No doubt other Orthodox Churches will join the Uniate (the act of unity) between the Catholic and Russian Orthodox Churches. There is still time left before the all-Orthodox Council for all Orthodox Church leaders to meet with the Roman celebrant, who is also a Jesuit.Thus the Vatican can finally become the Church of Freemasonry: Templars, the Society of Jesus, the Order of Malta and Opus Dei, which henceforth will determine the policy of the Orthodox Churches.
Is that good or bad? For the Russian Orthodox Church it is a sign of end times, according to Jesus: “And I say unto thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Chapter 16, Verse 18)
In other words, the Russian Church that has kept the apostolic tradition until this day, would not be destroyed, would not be an abode for heretics like the Catholic Church, but would stay alive until the last day. How can this be possible, since the Uniate was signed with the Catholics, signifying the violation of apostolic rules and the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils? This can only be explained by the mighty works of God that are beyond human understanding. ”

You are missing the point. There is nothing to reunite, because there is only one Christian church, which is the orthodox Church.

We will wait for another 1000 or 2000 years for the Latins to come back to their senses and become Christians. But, if they remain Noahidists and the younger siblings of Pharisees, that’s also fine with us.

We see the Pope of one of the Western rulers, a political figure and nothing else.

During this one meeting at the airport, the Pope promised to stop raids of the Orthodox churches and parishes in Ukraine by the Catholics and Uniates. He lied, to no one’s surprise. End of story.

Scott, the true Christian church is united in Spirit, in one spiritual body, and yes, they can even be in the Catholic church, but, Revelation 18:4 – ‘4 And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues.’

Ralph, you cannot separate the “spiritual body” of the Church from its “physical body” i.e. the people who are baptized, chrismated, and eat and drink the same Body and Blood from the same cup. That’s the Orthodox Church. To pretend otherwise is a desperate attempt by the children of the Radical Reformation (we call them, ironically, Baptists today) to justify their bizzare doctrines that completely contradict what every Christian has believed and practiced since the time of the Apostles. It’s actually a modern Nestorianism. There’s a decent wiki page on that ancient heresy if you’ve never heard of it.

according to your words the only real authority is the Orthodox Church. Basically you’re telling others (most South Americans, Africans, …) they’re not part of the club. That reminds me of the approach of leaders of different religions and even of some of other Christian denominations. Why should anyone believe you?

A funny aspect of your approach is that it isn’t entirely new. Think of taking interest from others. If the online sources that I’ve read are correct, then it’s permitted to take interest from Gentiles. Others go even a step further and insist that The Ten Commandments only apply to a certain religious group or denomination, so it’s permitted to kill those. This reasoning had been used in the past and some still think it’s their obligation to assist in fulfilling prophecies by taking to the arms. Maybe that’s the way how prophecies are fulfilled, but those misled to kill others clearly violated The Ten Commandments (and the teachings of Jesus – if those violating them think of themselves as Christians).

You’re free to believe whatever you want, but be careful with statements like “we’re on the right path, you others are all wrong”. Everybody tries to use this approach.

@Scott
I understand what you are saying, no, I didn’t miss the point just pointed at that article which somehow fits here. I am aware of the obvious difference between the Orthodox and catholic Churches, therefore I was skeptic about that meeting back in 2016 and my only plausible explanation was : the Russian Patriarch has given maybe a last try, a last chance to a peaceful coexistence – since the deep roots of discord cannot be solved by man’s hands and minds. Also, this meeting has something to do with the End Times but I’m not gonna enter in that subject now. Just remember the events which have preceded this meeting and the events which followed after this meeting and there is a clearer picture. We all know it is war : first is at the spiritual level (which is the bigger) and then at the material level, which is unfolding step by step, as we witness. Sorry for my two day late reply (and thank you for yours) !

” Ecumenism is the common name for the pseudo-Christianity of the pseudo-Churches of Western Europe. Within it is the heart of European humanism, with Papism as its head. All of pseudo-Christianity, all of those pseudo-Churches, are nothing more than one heresy after another. Their common evangelical name is: Pan-heresy. Why? This is because through the course of history various heresies denied or deformed certain aspects of the God-man and Lord Jesus Christ; these European heresies remove Him altogether and put European man in His place. In this there is no essential difference between Papism, Protestantism, Ecumenism, and other heresies, whose name is “Legion.”

Thanks for that, I just read it now again. Conclusion : The Truth lies within our heart if we allow Jesus to be there. To understand the mysteries behind the Truth, there are no human words who can tell, be it King, be it Pope, be it Patriarch or simple believer or not. We are soul and spirit, just visitors of this earthly world, which is longer, or even short, embedded in a mortal body, naked we came and naked we’ll leave…even the Kings, the Pope, the Patriarchs and all. Who will be the last, who’ll shut down the Light, the King, the Pope, the Patriarch ?

” What are, on the other hand, the fruits of the God-Man society , the Church?—Saints, Martyrs, and Confessors. That is its goal, that is its meaning and design, that is the proof of its indestructible strength. Not books and libraries, systems and cities—all things that are here today and gone tomorrow. The various pseudo-Christian humanisms fill the world with books, while Orthodoxy fills it with the hallowed.” ( Saint Justin )

Not much to add, other that these political and organisational struggles and fights are what makes many true believers leaving the churches. Ohhh not again.
After all our submission to God is between ourselves, the bible and God.

It seems any organisation above 1500 cant function without dogfights about who should be in charge.

There is a passage in NT where the disciples are debating amongst themselves about their relative positions which seems a little strange but to someone familiar with monastic customs it is quite ordinary. When Buddhist monks meet they have to establish amongst themselves who has ordained before who so that they know in what order to sit and who bows to who. It is not proper for a monk to sit ahead of a more senior monk. For the apostles it would have been the same.

“The entire concept of the Papacy is a Frankish notion”? The bishops of Alexandria were the first to be considered popes–before Rome adopted Christianity. The bishops of Rome adopted the same title later–after Rome adopted Christianity.

I would like to add to the above the subtle difference in Greek naming of Pope vs Priest (the place of an accent):
Πάπας = Pope and Παπάς => priest
And yes, Papadopoulos in a one very popular last name which means the son of priest.

Thank you for taking the time to write this article, Saker. I want to reassure you that your discussion of these topics is definitely Not futile. I know that in time you will expand this essay, because I can sense your passion for the subjects you covered here. St. Phillip II was a truly brave and remarkable man–quite unlike the recently deceased Billy Graham, backslapper of presidents and politicians, “America’s favorite pastor”, the corrupt media called him. – -I wonder if Jesus thought of Graham as His “favorite pastor”……Keep the prophet Elijah in mind–, he was definitely not preaching the hard truth because he was trying to win some kind of popularity contest.

The problem of the relation between Church and State is a very thorny one.

“16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. 17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? 18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? 19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a coin. 20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. 22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way” (Matthew 22:16-21).

“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which is from God. The authorities that exist have been appointed by God. 2Consequently, the one who resists authority is opposing what God has set in place, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the one in authority? Then do what is right, and you will have his approval 4For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not carry the sword in vain. He is God’s servant, an agent of retribution to the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to authority, not only to avoid punishment, but also as a matter of conscience.6This is also why you pay taxes. For the authorities are God’s servants, who devote themselves to their work. 7Pay everyone what you owe him: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due 8Be indebted to no one, except to one another in love, for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law.…(Romans 13:1-8)

We have the example of Peter and other apostles at Acts 5:29. “We must obey God as ruler, rather than men”. Romans uses the term “Gods servant” to refer to governmental authorities so when a government is not acting as God’s servant then a Christian should follow his Bible trained conscience. For example when Christians are arrested for their beliefs then love for fellow Christians means that we do not identify other members of Christ’s congregation to the authorities should they demand it. Similarly if our conscience tells us that Christians do not learn war anymore, then we will refused military training.

So obedience to God’s law for a Christian is mandatory. Obedience to man’s law comes second. So our subjection to the governmental authorities is relative. Ultimately we render an account for our actions to Christ

Saker, excellent take on the situation. First of all, I would like to say that when I speak of the Church, I mean Christian Orthodoxy. Also, when I say Christians I mean Orthodox Christians. I find it very interesting that you actually recognize “Cultural Christians” as a valid group. Many times, I have heard people criticizing the church and its leaders, while strongly identifying themselves as Christians.
The reason for that was the fact that all throughout the history church leaders have been known
to collaborate with invaders or oppressors. Many explained this as the survivalism. This may be one of the reasons why church survived the Turkish, Communist or other invading yoke. I have admit that as this is possibly an important fact, for today there would be no church to speak of, and we would call ourselves Muslims or communists.
Today, Church, needs to survive the new threat which is the “liberal attack on Christianity” whose intent is to destroy Christianity by an excuse of promoting “non religious society” while protecting the “so called religious minorities”. Russians, perfectly recognize this phenomenon, as this is what they had to endure under the Communist yoke. The same animal, just different name.
On the other hand, the rulers have always recognized church’s power over the people’s minds,
thus attempting to ensnare the control over the church and by extension people’s minds.
Funny, you mention the word “Phanari”, which means “source of light” and which perfectly identifies
the Constantinople as such for the Christians. In the West this word was stolen, maybe not, by the “Illuminati”.
In the 1800’s, it was the Greek Phanariotes, who lead the independence or awakening war against the Turks
in all of the Balkans.
While on the subject, the word Pharaoh (from Greek Pharos – Light used at sea). He was representing the God of Light (Apollon?).
Interesting point: Albania has more than ~65% Christians, yet we have been brainwashed to think that it’s populated by Muslims. The same goes for Palestine.
Again, thanks for great article.

I appreciate the positive attitude, but I’d also appreciate the sources for Albania and Palestine being Christian. I think less than 5% of Palestinians are Christian, and that seems like a hard number to fake. BTW I attend an Antiochian church in the US with a few Arab immigrant families, and they believe the 5% number.
Also regarding your comment about the Phanar, they had some horrifically bad Patriarchs in the early 20th century it’s been downhill ever since. Very sad. The current one actually isn’t that bad compared to his predecessors. He still has a chance to ruin everything in Ukropistan, though.

Andrew, the sources for Albania are Greek. Albania is also a home to about 35% of Greeks who are referred to as Arvanites. And, no they are not Albanians (it actually works the other way around), they are Greeks from the days of Pelasgoi (prehistoric times). Their local dialect is referred to as Arvanitiki Glossa and it’s an ancient Greek language, I’ll leave it at that. As for the Palestine, I have no sources, but your 5% is fabricated by the occupier simply because officially half of Israel’s population is Arab, most of that population has been displaced and forced to live in other countries. So, anyone looking at the percentages, will have to rely on Israeli stats which most certainly will be fabricated to suit the cause.

Sorry, add Vlachs to Arvanites. Yes, Vlachs are Romanized Greeks, even the ones in Romania. Romania’s indigenous people are Dacians. Interesting thing from Romania’s history. Again in 1800’s Greek General Ipsilantis, who happened to serve in Russian Army. Decided to mobilize Vlachs from Romania against the Turks. His army was more of a Brigade by modern standards. When he layed siege to Turks in Bukarest, Austrian Emperor thinking that this was going to become another part of Greece, panicked and called Tsar asking him to do something about. Tsar feeling sorry for his cousin, ordered Ipsilantis to withdraw. This decision happened to be a death blow to Ipsilantis’ plans and giving Turks time to bring in the reserves in order to destroy his army. Thus putting an end to Romania becoming a part of independent Greece.

There is a bit of a confusion here. The ‘Vlachs’ from Greece are not Greeks ‘Romanized’, but the ‘Romanized’ descendants of the large population of the Carpatho-Danubian-Balkanic area known as Thracians, Dacians and Illyrians mixed with Slavs. They call themselves Aromâni/Armâni, speak a Latin language and were spread all over the Peninsula, as shepherds, carriers, merchants, bankers. Their occupations made them multilingual. Some of them became ‘Hellenized’ and participated in the struggle for Independence. Some migrated to the Danubian Principalities of Valachia and Moldova, where they have been perceived as ‘Greeks’, but mostly assimilated with the local population. But the ‘Valachians’ of Valachia and Moldova were in no way Greeks.
Romanian Principalities have been vassals of the Ottoman Empire, with a large autonomy. They allied with the Russians in their struggle against the Turks. For 100 years, the Turks, to ensure the loyalty of those countries, imposed as Princes Greeks from Phanar. These Princes played a big role in the diplomatic and military games played between Turks, Austrians and Russians. The started to dream in secret of the restoration of the Byzantine Empire under their leadership. In that context they thought of the Romanian Principalities as part of the new Byzance. But that was not what the Romanians thought of. They were more inclined, naturally, towards the Russian ‘Greek plan’ which envisaged the restoration of Byzance under Russian leadership and the restoration of a “Kingdom of Dacia” which would have include all Orthodox Romanians (including those from Transylvania, at the time occupied by Austria) under a Russian King (Potemkin). That might be a reason why Russians did not support Ypsilantis.
On the other hand the Phanariots have been perceived by Romanians as representatives of the Ottomans and spoliators of the country on behalf of the Turks (and of their own pockets). They did not want to see the Phanariots back on the thrones of the Principalities, demanding the restoration of Romanian Princes. That led to frictions between Romanians and the Filiki Hetairia, which assassinated the leader of the Romanian revolt, Tudor Vladimirescu, definitively alienating the Romanians from the ‘Greek’ cause. Romania would gain her own independence in 1878 under the aegis of Russia.

Sorry my friend but you are wrong. I wont’ go there. In 1930′ Greek language professor from Knossos, together with Roamnian professor studied Vlach language nad concluded that more than 60% of the words used by them are ancient Greek words usually referred to as Homeric. Funny as it may sound, people in Romania spoke Greek, and the language taught in schools was Greek. Accordingly to one Greek history writer from Canada, who claimed in his book that around 1860 Romanian authorities scrambled to create their language and national identity. This was the time when they forbade the use of Greek language. Kings in Vlach Kingdom had Greek names. Going back to Roman times, The famous 5th legion, was the one that Vlachs referred themselves to as belonging, they referred to themselves as “Tsintsari”, you understand that don’t you. This is why they called themselves as Aromanians => “non-Romans”. In Polish the naming difference is beautifully represented as: Itally – Włochy, Vlachia – Wołochy. You can see the difference, as Italy and not quite Italy. I happened to see in my young days some Romanian propaganda movies about Brave Dacians defeating the ugly Romans. No different than English BS about the Picts and the Romans. Finally Romania means just that “Country of Romans => Greeks”. Have good national dreams.

I would like to gripe on Movie BS. I just watched, with difficulty, movie called “Centurion”. What I would like to point out is the fact that Romans are portrayed as idiot oafs, who managed to conquer the World yet never learned the art of war. Here is the example. They expedite legion to fight and destroy Picts. They have their heavy foot soldiers, yet not even one bowmen, not one pelter, not one catapult. They walk into an area presenting itself as a perfect place for an ambush yet they do not send out the scouts? Were they born yesterday? Real amateurs, oh yes the guy (centurion) says this is new type of war, without an honor, and Romans never had to fight dirty war before? Right. Picts roll some fire balls down the hill and yet Romans stand there like the idiots letting the balls roll over them? Did the primitive Picts have the technology to make the balls that would keep together while soaked up with some fire media (petroleum) and the Romans would not have a clue about this fact? Enough gripes, lets face it Romans left the Englaterra not because of some picts, but the lack of funds to keep those legions all over the World. Lack of money can to that to anyone, except if you have the presses to print useless paper.

OK. My final reply to this. Romania, playing a dirty game of Vlach’s Carpathian origins approached UN with a request to recognize Vlachs as a minority in Greece. Vlach Representatives in Greece officially replied to the UN and Romanian history-twisters that they are not a minority, they are just bilingual Greeks. But, this BS does not stop. Just look at Wikipedia.
I’ll add to my other note about their language, only ~25% of their language is Latin, the rest is a split of Arvanite (also ancient Greek, but older than Homeric) and Slav from the north. This is the result of them sheep herding all over the place.

When people can talk about a ‘Greek language professor from “Knossos”‘ you know instantly that the talker is an ignorant who tries to impress the audience with apparently scientific mumbo-jumbo. The more when he is ‘supporting’ it with the authority of unnamed “Roamnian professors” and “Greek history writers from Canada”.
Well, we know that Greek chauvinists always refused to acknowledge the existence of the Vlachs in Greece pretending that the language they speak was imposed on them by school teachers sent from Romania in the time of the Ottoman Empire. We know all that. Things are in the same vain as the circus they make about ‘Macedonia’. Now, if Greek claims over Macedonia may have some semblance of reason although the ancient Macedonians were not Greeks at all, albeit culturally ‘Hellenized’, claims over Romania are in the realm of ridiculous fantasies. It was a pipe-dream of some Phanariots intent to restore the Byzantine Empire extending their leadership of the ‘millet-i Rûm’ (the Orthodox populations of the Ottoman Empire including besides Greeks also Bulgarians, Serbs, Vlachs, Slavs, Georgians, Arabs, Albanians) over the North-Danubian Principalities where they occupied for a century their thrones.

Please, your ignorance and reply is insulting: Chauvinist? Fascist maybe? I am going to venture the guess that you can read Greek like the Nikola Gruyevski, of Fyrom who is actually from Macedonia (Greece).

Let me quote a guy who identifies himself as Vlach.
…
It is hard to reconcile this picture with the idea, cultivated in an atmosphere of misconceptions and disinformation, that the Vlachs in Greece are oppressed or, even worse, the victims of persecution. The truth is that the associations and the Federation receive frequent grants and subsidies for the whole range of their activities from the Ministry of Culture. Knowing the past as we do, it is clear that none of this would exist if the Greek state really harboured any hostility to the thousands of members of these Vlach associations and their activities.
…
The spasmodic and largely ineffectual activities of a number of small ‘Irredentist Organisations’ – most of them from outside the Balkan region – took on a new lease of life as their members endeavoured to pose as the only advocates and defenders of any Vlach identity. The irredentist revival culminated in the celebrated Proposal 1333 of the Council of Europe. In the early 1990’s an official observer, Mr. De Puig, spent a few days travelling in Greece, made casual visits to just one or two of the dozens of Vlach associations, and to one or two Vlach villages. Without any serious or meaningful scholarly intention, he then casually threw together a report which was subsequently adopted without question, and with no small degree of naivetι, by the Council of Europe. At the same time foreign, non-Vlach researchers had begun to tour the Vlach communities and settlements on either side of the Balkan borders, seeking out the Vlachs and investigating their identity. During the same period various NGO’s – some of them of international stature, like the Helsinki Watch – dedicated to the monitoring of the rights of various minority groups, officially recognised or otherwise, attempted to voice their own opinions on the subject. Official departments and agencies of the European Union, like the European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages (EBLUL) also became involved. Semi-official state organisations, like the Centre for Research into Minority Groups (KEMO) began to take an interest in the Vlachs, perhaps wishing to foster the impression that the Greek state now had a more tolerant, European image. It is also true that the official Romanian state – usually acting behind the scenes, but sometimes quite openly – once again turned its attention to the Vlachs of other Balkan countries, contriving to inject new life into old and familiar nationalistic views. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was officially recognised by Romania when it agreed to describe its Vlach population as a minority. In its annual reports on Greece, the US State Department refers to the Vlachs as a minority group. Even the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs mentions the Vlachs and the need to protect minority rights on its official website, perhaps unaware of the existence of several thousand Muslim Vlachs within its own borders. Certain Greek nationalist circles now began to draw attention again to the treachery of a number of Vlachs during the Axis Occupation. The official Greek state appeared to be taken by surprise, hesitant and slow to react.
…
In all this confusion the reaction of the Vlachs of Greece was what one might expect, whether that expressed by ordinary people who were passive spectators of these developments, or the more official reaction of the collective associations. They had the impression that spectres from the past, and new self-appointed protectors and patrons, were blatantly ignoring their own sense of identity, their hard-won achievements of recent years, and generating wave after wave of disinformation, cultivating a new cold-war climate. I shall always remember the indignation expressed by a woman from Larissa: ‘Enough is enough! All these people need to understand that we Vlachs are not some savage tribe somewhere in the jungle of Papua – New Guinea waiting for the missionaries to come along and save our bodies and souls’. Her reaction appears to be well-founded. I know of no individual Vlach or Vlach organisation which officially invited the intervention of these various parties, with their academic studies and their rash political speeches. The current reality of the Vlachs in Greece, the sense of identity shared by the overwhelming majority of the Vlachs, has always been quite different. The mere mention of the word ‘minority’ is enough to cause them an allergic reaction.
…
Of course, the truth is that these achievements endure, evidence to any objective and well-disposed observer that the Vlachs in Greece enjoy a position of stable equilibrium between their linguistic or any other ‘otherness’ and their inalienable right to be considered members of Romiosyni, the modern Greek nation – sharing their history with that of the rest of the Modern Greeks. Perhaps the only unresolved issue is that of their language – a language which is in any case now used by fewer and fewer people, and is almost unspoken among the young.
…
However that may be, those who are genuinely interested in the Vlachs must give serious consideration to the views, feelings and concerns of the Vlachs of Greece. The individuals of Vlach descent living in Greece outnumber all their fellow Vlachs living in the other Balkan countries; even more, they continue to live in what is indisputably the ancestral land of all the Vlachs. How can we call ourselves democrats while we speak of – and even worse act on behalf of – the Vlachs without seeking the consent of the majority of the Vlach people? Is the interest of all these self-appointed experts in Vlach affairs, academics and politicians, really to be their salvation? Or does it not rather threaten to hasten the conscious process of discarding the Vlach identity? Perhaps, finally, if the ‘missionaries’ were not so grimly dogmatic, if they renounced indoctrination in favour of cooperation, they might succeed in allaying the concerns of the Vlachs and overcoming their reservations. Yet the fact is that in the contemporary world there is no longer any place for missionary activity. The best course would appear to be to leave the Vlachs of Greece to deal with the issue of their identity by themselves. They have already proved that they possess the necessary talent and ability to speak out for themselves. The main objectives, especially for the Vlachs living beyond the Greek borders, must remain peace, prosperity and progress. If these can be secured, perhaps things will be different.
…
Read the rest athttp://www.vlachs.gr/en/various-articles/contemporary-vlach-identity-and-reality-in-greece

An excellent article. However, there is one comment that is not correct, or at least requires some further information. The Uniates are condemned as a kind of political tool of the Catholics in attacking Orthodox weakness. In fact, the Uniates are an inconvenience for many in the Vatican, and they are very keen to get rid of them. They want Catholics in Rssia to go to the Latin rite, not the Orthdox rite, and the Uniates are a nuisance, so they are subject to obstruction and death of a thousand cuts. It is a tiny Church, and unloved by pretty much everyone. That it is based on the hope of unifying the one true Church, yet has no friends, pretty clearly reflects the intractability of the situation in the Churches. Its isolation also gives it many canonical problems, which are not being helped by either the East or West. Yet it is based on a love of the Orthodox liturgy, and it stands for the unity of the Church which The Saker acknowledges cannot be split. A little more research might reveal the true situation: the Church that believes there is only one Church and Christ has no friends, only enemies.

So wanting a unified Church is ‘having your cake and eating it?’ It is true that is the general thinking, which is why the Uniates are so friendless and the split is is intractable, but it is bizarre if you reflect on it for a bit. As the Saker implies, there is only one Christ and only one Church.
Oh, I beg your pardon (note to self) apparently there is one bit that is a cake and another that is sort of digested cake crumbs …

The Church is one, this is a truism. But it is one when ‘in one mind we confess the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity in one essence and undivided’. The Roman Catholics ceased to confess the Creed of the One Church, making a Creed of their own and making their own rites which diverge and contradict the practice of the One Church.
Now, the Unia was not the result of a desire to ‘unify the Church’, but an attempt to submit her to the Popes and their heretical propositions. Unia accepted the unacceptable heresies of Papism for material advantages, becoming one with it. The preservation of the ‘oriental’ liturgy and rites was conceived as a transitory measure to not alienate people from the start, but which was to be slowly and unobtrusively changed in time to full Latin rite and Unia fully absorbed into the Papist ‘church’. This is how the problem is seen today both by the Papists and Orthodox. You want to be ‘Catholic’? Go for it. Uniats delude themselves that by keeping the external trappings of ‘Orthodoxy’ they would be able to attract the Orthodox to submit to the Pope. Perhaps deep down they feel that they had bee tricked, but they can’t face it.
There is one more consideration. Unia was clearly a weapon against ‘Muscovy’ embraced by Ukrainian nationalists and that’s why they stick to it, although from the point of view of the Catholics themselves it outlived its usefulness.

Even if that were true, and it is not – I suggest you look a little closer at the history and origins – what do you propose as the way to unify the Church? Given that the split is wrong.
Both the Catholics and Orthodox recognise the legitimacy of each other’s sacraments, which they hav to do because they both have undeniable Apostolic succession.
As for the Ukraine, isn’t the point of the Saker’s article that politics should be considered Caesar’s realm, as it were? What I like about his article is that he starts from the religious realities and sees politics as merely the temporal/political arena, the fallen world riddled with evil, as ever.

So what is the solution to this phenomenon described by The Saker:

Introducing another toxic phenomenon: (ethno-)phyletism

Things are made even worse by the outright nasty streak of nationalism infecting many Orthodox Churches.

The Church is not dis-united. The parts which separated from the Church are outside the Church (properly the Roman-Catholic church is not really a church). The only way is their repentance, renunciation of their heresies and schism. Apostolic succession is the tracing of a direct line of apostolic ordination, Orthodox doctrine, and full communion from the Apostles to the current episcopacy of the Orthodox Church. All three elements are constitutive of apostolic succession. Apostolic succession is broken in heresy when Apostolic Faith is trampled on, and in schism when communion with all other Orthodox bishops is broken.
Catholics ‘recognize’ Orthodox ‘sacraments’ as valid, but one can hardly say that the Orthodox recognize the validity of the Catholic ‘sacraments’, except perhaps some ‘ecumenically’ minded clergymen who actually create confusion and maintain the delusions of the schismatics. An Orthodox cannot receive Communion from Catholics. Orthodox cannot ‘unify’ with error, they don’t need such ‘unity’.
And was not Unia ‘infected’ by nationalism

Wow, you really are extreme. Shouldn’t be surprised, i suppose. So on what basis do you argue that the See of Peter is no longer canonically legitimate, given that there is direct Apostolic succession (a succession that, as The Saker points out, is very troubled in many parts of Orthodoxy)? That is, in what way does ‘schism’ invalidate Apostolic succession and where do you derive your authority for that? And how do you define ‘schism’ and how does it invalidate the sacraments? I can see how that occurs when there are huge differences in theology, such as the consubstantiation/transubstantiation divide. But struggling to see it here, given the similarities in theology. I’d also be interested in how you interpret the Old Russian disagreements from that point of view.
I presume the ‘heresy’ you are referring to is the role of the Pope? Not any theological difference? The only ones I am aware of are the Filioque and maybe some differences over Mary, which I very much doubt is where the real problem lies. The Pope ‘controversy’ looks more ecclesiastical than theological to me.
I might add you have very little to concern you at a practical level here; there have been active attempts to undermine the Uniates from the Latin/West, who don’t want them to exist, and they are pretty much driven underground in Russia. Not sure how it survives at all, really.

It seems that you did not read what I wrote. I repeat then: Apostolic succession is the tracing of a direct line of apostolic ordination, Orthodox doctrine, and full communion from the Apostles to the current episcopacy of the Orthodox Church. All three elements are constitutive of apostolic succession.
Papal ‘church’ broke the communion with the other Apostolic Churches on matters of doctrine, worship and ecclesiastical discipline. That is schism. They preach a different doctrine than the Apostles. That parts of Orthodoxy have not been exempted of ‘troubles with succession’ does not confer upon the Papal schism a greater validity.
The ‘Old Believers’ schism is a case in point. There is even a nuance of ‘phyletism’ about it.

Canon XLV of the Holy Apostles
“Let any Bishop, or Presbyter, or deacon that merely joins in prayer with heretics be suspended, but if he had permitted them to perform any service as Clergymen, let him be deposed.”
Canon LXV of the Holy Apostles:
“If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated.”
Canon XLVI of the Holy Apostles:
“We order any Bishop, or Presbyter, that has accepted any heretics’ Baptism, or sacrifice, to be deposed; for “what consonancy hath Christ with Beliar? or what part hath the believer with an infidel?”

What do you say when you see the Popes entering the synagogues of the Jews and being ‘blessed’ by the Rabbis (in secret ceremonies) and the mosques of the Muslims and praying with them?

I can see what your argument is in relation to ‘ecclesiastical discipline’; how much of the Orthodox church has observed that in your view?
Can you elaborate on the failures of ‘doctrine and worship’? I think that is where we probably disagree.
As for your question, I don’t know anything about it. But the behaviour of the Vatican is often less than exemplary (not least in relation to the Uniates, who they want gone). If you are suggesting some kind of devil’s bargain I would be sceptical, but the behaviour of the clergy is not the Church.

@‘ecclesiastical discipline’; how much of the Orthodox church has observed

This is a problem that must be looked at historically. It requires in depth study (of the Scriptures, of the Synods, their decisions and canons, of Church history, of history, of Christian art). It cannot be solved by throwing a ‘you too’ at any objection to Papacy or Unia.

A recent Bloomberg effort by Leonid Bershidsky — not sure how to read it … some truth perhaps but the IMF report referred to looks to be framing the Russian domain as ‘backward’ etc. I’d be interested in comments etc.

I cannot and will not pass judgement on you for your views of the Moscow Patriarchate. I do not come from your background. I am not Russian. I am not the son of White Russian Refugees. I don’t know the history of Russia and the Church and the Soviet Era like you do.

However at this particular time in history I can say I am not ready to follow your lead to the self proclaimed “Genuine Orthodox Church” (GOC). Before I converted to Orthodoxy in a parish of the Moscow Patriarchate in the Former Soviet Union I was a Roman Catholic. When I was a Roman Catholic I was constantly searching for more traditional manifestations of Catholic worship eventually leading me to a Latin Mass Parish in communion with Rome.

Before I converted to Orthodoxy I struggled with the legitimacy of Vatican II and hence the legitimacy of the Pope of Rome and the Novus Ordo Liturgy. For a brief time I flirted with the idea of Sedevacantism (St. Pius V Society) which is the traditionalist Roman Catholic Group that adheres strictly to the Tridentine Latin Mass and considers Pope Pius the 12th to be the last “real Pope” and since then the Vatican has fallen into modernism and the Chair of St. Peter remains vacant.

All though I love the Tridentine Latin Mass I could not wholeheartedly commit myself to the Sedevacantist position. Eventually I found myself drawn back to Orthodoxy which I had been introduced to as a teenager in San Francisco (I had unbeknownst to me walked into an Orthodox Mission ran by monks from Platina, CA where Father Seraphim Rose had helped establish a Monastery). I had always felt deep down that Orthodoxy was the ancient Catholic faith of my European ancestors and today I wholeheartedly believe the Orthodox Church to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (the One True Faith). I know the human side of The Church has and has always had it’s shortcomings (and always fallen short of the mark) but I am not ready to separate myself from communion with that which calls itself the “Canonical” Church but at the same time my eyes are not shut to truth. I do have a good amont of trust both to ROCOR and to the Antiochian Patriarchate which have been absolutely key to evangelizing to the non-Orthodox Americans like me. God be with you and yours Andrei and let us never forget that which is impossible for men is possible for God.

Saker, Saker Congratulations!!!!!!!! I must say I’m impressed truly impressed. You of all people would be flabbergasted by my testimony. I should really write a biography of my life and how i came to know Christ. Being from a Roman Catholic family I grew to hate all things religious until that is I came to a point in my life at the tender age of 18 when I sought out answers from God Himself. 2 questions I asked of him in prayer one was why are there so many different religions and churches? and then the second which one did He want me in. To make a long story short God directed me to the teachings of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians and how Paul was faced with the same kind of issues ie: I follow Paul. I follow Apollos. still others I follow Peter. etc etc 1 Corinthians the first three chapters has all the answers about the why of so many different denominations and such. As for following political rulers well I think Christ said it best in Matthew 7:21-23

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

This scripture came to a head for me especially when I came across a book by a world renowned religious leader who fell from grace and lost his entire ministry and brought terrible shame upon our Lord. In a biography he wrote he confessed that he could never understand what was meant by the words ‘depart from me ye workers of iniquity I never knew you.’

Wow, i thought too myself how does someone who claims to be a follower of Christ and yet totally and completely is oblivious to this one scripture? If some one had asked me at the tender age of 18 for an explanation the answer would have been really quite simple.

DOES CHRIST JESUS KNOW WHAT SIN HE HAD TO DIE FOR IN YOUR LIFE AND DO YOU KNOW THAT HE KNOWS IT?

And I must say that down to this very day I am still flabbergasted that this fool of a minister had the ignorance to actually confess this in a book.

Something has gone wrong, terribly, terribly wrong with the entire Christian Church on a global scale it really has. No wonder we have lost so much respect in the eyes of the world. I think its called carnal Christianity.
I am even remembered by a missionary who was sent to my parents homeland of Croatia from USA to start a church and upon hearing of it I became so full of disgust thinking too myself what are you going to do? rechristianize a people who are already Christians many of whom who could care less about following Christ. It’s just a cultural thing for many though my mother almost disowned and hated me for leaving the Catholic Church.

the good news however is to be found in Ephesians 4:14-16

Stay tuned I believe God is going to act in the Church on a truly global scale before Christ returns!!!!!

We Serbs are grateful to our Father St Sava for establishing Serbian Church, as we have had issues with clergy from Constantinople. We called them Fanariots. Ever since they have had the only mission – to dominate the Church. This is why a national church establishment was not a bad solution.

This is a very scholarly, informative and thought-provoking article.
This said, I beg to disagree on a few points.
First of all, it’s all very well to put forward canon law and declare the Moscow Patriarchate illegitimate. But where was a Soviet citizen to turn to if they wanted to practise their faith without defecting to protestantism?
To be sure, not all of the New Martyrs were Josephites. Persecutions extended well beyond the 20’s. The Hrushchev years were years of persecution for the Orthodox Church after the relative truce that followed WWII. Tihon Shevkunov’s “Everyday saints” gives very good and lively examples of the heroism and sometimes, indeed, sanctity it took to protect the faith during those years. (Most prominent from his book is the loving figure of Ioann Hristjankin, with his spontaneous forgiveness of his torturer and the “brother” who turned him in.) If one is to judge a tree by its fruit, I find the faith and radiant love of some priests and hieromonks of the Moscow Patriarchate the living proof that this Church is healing its past lapses.
Second, I don’t see how being an offshoot of the Moscow Patriarchate can be the main problem of the Kiev Patriarchate, since this offers the hope, albeit a tenuous one, of repentance and reunification, or at least friendly relations. What the maneuver is about is division of Christians in what is a deeply Christian country, which is why the plight of the Ukraine is so painful.
Then, I’d be very surprised if there were a unanimity among apostolic fathers to say that the rock upon whom Christ’s Church was to be edified according to Matthew 16:18-19 was exclusively the truth of Jesus’ Messiahship. The ROCOR priest that introduced me to orthodoxy did interpret it as giving Peter personally an exalted role, as does Kallistos Ware in “The Orthodox Church”, where other “Petrine passages” are also adduced, namely Luke 22:32 (“But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”) and John 21:15-17 (“Feed My sheep.”). Of course, from this election of Peter to the exaltation of future holders of the See of Rome, there’s a step that Orthodox theologians do not take.
Last, the political fall of Rome to the Franks does not in itself deprive Rome of its legitimacy. And indeed, for the first 8 centuries, the Bishop of Rome was regarded as a reference of orthodox doctrine, a resource to rely on in the fight against heresies. It’s only later that, from what I understand, Frankish Knights maneuvered to drive a wedge between Rome and Constantinople, notably by insisting that the filioque clause, which came from Latin areas where the fight against arianism was hottest, be imposed on all churches.

The ‘Petrine passages’ do not really give Peter any ‘exalted’ role. Actually they are mild rebukes for Peter’s weakness:

“31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou turn back (i.e. after your fall), strengthen thy brethren. 33 And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. 34 And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me” (Luke 22:31-34).

“15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. 19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God” (John 21:15-18).

Clearly the rebuke to Peter comes after a quarrel among the Apostles about ‘primacy’! And it is clear that Peter was the one claiming the greater ‘greatness’ among the Apostles!

21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! 23 And they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing. 24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. 25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. 27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth. 28 Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. 29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; 30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” ( 22:21-30).

Again we see that Jesus bestowed the ‘kingdom’ upon all the Apostles. Even Matthew 16:19 says not ‘I give you…’, but “I will give you…”, in the future when Jesus will give it to all the Apostles:
“21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” (John 20:21-23).

Rome was seen as a reference to Orthodox doctrine, but not ‘the’ reference. If Rome jeopardized her legitimacy was not because her submission to the Franks, but because she fell into heresies (there is not only the ‘filioque’ at stake) and schism and lost the ‘Apostolic succession’ and therefore any claim at ‘shepherding and feeding’ the flock.

For the Saker? (Shahna)
————
I fear that this post is a little biased and extreme. While I do respect Saker’s viewpoint, and have tremendous respect for Saker’s geopolitical analysis I disagree on this matter.

I am a member of one of the main Orthodox “jurisdictions” in America, and I openly admit that there should be no “jurisdictions”. The situation in America is not traditional, not canonical (according to the canons) and not endorsed by the main Orthodox Churches in the world today.

I agree with Saker that the use of “canonical” is problematic today, and not according to the Holy Fathers. However, just since there exist problems in the main Orthodox Churches in America today we are joined in Communion. It appears that Saker is not in communion with us. See http://www.assemblyofbishops.org/ for list of Orthodox Churches in communion.

I suggest that you study the list of bishops in communion at the times of Saint Maximos the Confessor. You will then realize how absolutely non-Orthodox your argument is.
The Saker

I agree with you dear Saker that there exists plenty of nominal Orthodox, plenty of problems with our clergy and scandals. Unfortunately, that has existed since the time of the Apostles. I just cannot agree to draw the conclusion you have and join a “traditional Orthodox Church” that is not in communion with the rest of the Orthodox in this Country.

If you will allow me I will explain why, and appeal to all other readers. The Holy Orthodox Church is THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC Church that has existed from the time of the Apostles until today, and it will exist to the end of time with the gates of hell NOT prevailing against it.

From my personal experience from my conversion in 2003 until 15 years later I see numerous miracles in my personal life and the corporate life of the Church on a weekly if not daily basis.

1.) After converting and being brought into the Church I ceased struggling with sins that I could not overcome prior to joining.

2.) My sister who was unable to conceive received a blessing from Saint Irene of Chrysovalantou Monastery (http://www.stirene.org/) and ate one of the blessed apples there. She conceived and nine months later the baby was born on Saint Irene’s Saint Day.

Despite the weakness of us humans God is loving and merciful and is working in His Holy Church. I cannot deny these miracles and take the position that Saker does. I cannot deny the Grace of God I have witnessed and see in His Holy Church.

Last, forgive me if I offend anyone or you dear Saker. My words are nothing, but if you have time please read what this dear contemporary Holy Elder says: http://orthochristian.com/91448.html

Also, if people think that Orthodoxy is not reviving in the official Russian Church please read “Everyday Saints and Other Stories”. It is impossible to deny the Grace of God in world Orthodoxy and the numerous Saints being produced. I’m not a son of Russia or the Russian Church, but I can see God’s Grace at work powerfully. So, brother and sisters – keep the faith! Do NOT despair. The enemy of our souls will NOT win.

Much Love to all.

Do you realize that NONE of your arguments are patristic? Not *one*. This is a sad case of what I call “post-patristic “Orthodoxy””. A religion whose doxa only is externally similar to the one of the Fathers and who is completely integrated in, and part of, the modern world. It is sad to see the phronema of the Fathers so completely lost.
The Saker

Well, this is all very nice, but the Saker has obviously forgotten how the Christianity came to prominence in the 4th century – through the (still) mysterious conversion of emperor Constantine and his mother. Since then, each and every Christian church that wanted to survive long enough, had to lobby for support by the local secular power, be it an emperor, king, duke, or whatever. Without secular power support, it would even today be a kind of collection of local sects, without much influence on historical events!

Sitemap

Saker Android App

An Android App has been developed by one of our supporters. It is available for download and install by clicking on the Google Play Store Badge above.

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.